®lu0l0()ical  Seminary, 


tmr^TiT      iT._ 


BX  7117  .W6  1850  v. 3 
Woods,  Leonard,  1774-185A. 
The  works  of  Leonard  Woods 


THE 


WORKS 


OF 


LEONARD    WOODS.  D.  D., 


LATELY  PROFESSOR  OF  CHRISTLAJJ  THEOLOGY  IN  THE 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  ANDOVER. 


IN  FIVE  VOLUMES. 


VOL.  m. 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED    BY   B.    PERKINS    &    CO., 

100  Washington   Street 
1850. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1850,  by 

LEONARD   WOODS,  D.D., 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


andover: 
JOHN   D.   FLAGG, 

8IERE0TTPEE    AND    PRINTER. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  LXXXVn. 

Page. 

Regeneration.    Direct  agency  op  the  Spirit,  .  1 — 10 

LECTURE  LXXXVin. 

Regeneration.     Direct  agency  op  the  Spirit  consistent 

with  moral  agency, 11 25 

Physical  influence  and  change,  .......         14 

Why  should  ministers  preach  ?...,,.,  18 

Duty  of  sinners  to  become  holy,  .         .         •         .         .         .         21 

LECTURE  LXXXIX. 
Directions  to  inquiring  sinners,         ....  26—43 

LECTURE   XC. 
Evidences  of  Regeneration, 44 — 65 

LECTURE  XCL 
Nature  op  Christian  virtue,      .....         56 67 

LECTURE  XCn. 
Repentance, g8 78 


IV  CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  XCm. 

Faith,  in  the  general  sense, 79 — 92 

Faith  in  Christ, 85 

LECTURE  XCIV. 

Faith  —  can  it  be  described  ? 93 — 104 

Practical  influence, 98 

LECTURE  XCV. 
Prayer  —  its  nature,  design,  and  efficacy,    .         .         106 — 113 

LECTURE  XCVI. 

Efficacy  OF  PRAYER  subject  TO  limitations,    .        .        114 — 120 

LECTURE  XCVn. 
Prayer  OF  FAITH, 121 — 129 

LECTURE  XCVm. 
Prayer  op  faith  continued, 130 — 141 

LECTURE  XCLX. 

Definite  views  of  the  influence  of  prayer,  .         .         142 — 155 
Practical  remarks  as  to  the  duty, 149 

LECTURE  C. 
Justification  explained, 156 — 170 

LECTURE   CL 
Justification  —  its  nature  and  ground,  .        .        171 — 191 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  Cn 

Justifying  Faith.    Its  nature, 

Are  justification  and  sanctification  identical? 
Final  justification  of  the  believer,     .  . 

Propriety  of  praying  for  forgiveness,  . 

Imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness, 


192—207 

196 
198 
200 
201 


LECTURE  cm 

Paul  and  James  reconciled. 

The  orthodox  doctrine  promotive  of  obedience, 


J— 219 
213 


LECTURE  CrV. 
The  perseverance  op  saints,    .        .        •        • 


220—230 


LECTURE  CV. 
Objections  to  the  doctrine  of  persevkbance, 


281—249 


LECTURE    CVI. 


Resurrection, 


250—266 


LECTURE  CVn. 

Endless  Punishment  defended  against  the  objections 

OF  Foster, -     .         267—291 


LECTURE  CVm. 

Review  of  Foster  continued,  . 


292—307 


LECTURE  CIX. 
Christian  ordinances.    Baptism, 


308—316 


VI  CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  ex. 

Infant  baptism, 817 — 326 

Precautions  and  directions,      .         •         •         •         •         •         •         317 

Kind  of  evidence,  ....•••••  320 

Want  of  express  command,      .......         322 


LECTURE  CXL 

Infant  baptism, S27 — 337 

A  previous  rite  applied  to  infant  children,  *  .  •  .  327 
The  same  rite  for  parents  and  children,     .....         333 

LECTURE    CXn. 

Infant  baptism, •         888 — 350 

Christianity  founded  on  the  Old  Testament,  ....  338 
New  Testament  implies  infant  baptism,  .  .  .  •  .  342 
Baptism  of  proselytes,     ........         346 

LECTURE   CXm. 

Infant  baptism,  .......         351 — 368 

Commission  of  the  apostles  to  proselyte  all  nations,  .  .  .  351 
Instructions  of  Christ  favorable  to  infant  baptism,       .  .  .  355 

LECTURE   CXIV. 

Infant  baptism, 869 — 383 

Household  baptism,  .  .  .  .  .  .         •  •  370 

1  Cor.  7:  14,  considered,  ......*         872 


LECTURE  CXV. 

Infant  baptism.     Collateral  evidence,  .  .         .         884 — 893 

LECTURE  CXVL 

Infant  baptism.     Proof  from  history,     .  .        .         894 — 414 


CONTENTS. 


vn 


LECTURE  CXVn. 

Baptism  and  circumcision,        .         .        . 

Import  of  Infant  baptism,         ...» 

Utility, ► 

Relation  of  baptized  children  to  the  church,       > 
Duty  of  parents  and  the  church,       .         .         . 


415—443 


429 
432 
437 
440 


LECTURE  CXVm. 
Form  of  Christian  baptism, 


444—465 


LECTURE  CXrX. 


The  Lord's  Supper, 


466—474 


LECTURE  CXX. 
The  Lord's  Day,  or  Christian  Sabbath, 


476—487 


LECTURE   CXXL 

Church  government.     Prelacy, 

The  claim  of  bishops,  from  Matt.  18:  18,    . 

Christ's  promise  to  be  with  his  apostles  considered,     . 

LECTURE    CXXn. 

Church  government.     Prelacy, 

Nothing  favorable  to  prelacy  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Nothing  in  the  epistles,    ...... 


488—501 

494 
496 


502—520 

502 
505 


LECTURE  CXXm. 

Church  government.     Prelacy, 

Testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers, 

Testimony  of  Chrysostom  and  Jerome)  . 

Reason  for  establishing  prelacy,        .  . 

Introduction  of  prelacy,  .         .  , 


521—585 

523 
524 
629 
533 


VIU 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  CXXIV. 
Church  government.     Prelacy, 


Apostolic  succession, 

Remarks  of  Whately, 

Usher,  ...... 

Gospel  ministry  a  divine  appointment, 
Illustration  from  civil  government,   . 
Prelacy  of  hurtful  tendency,    . 


586—552 


536 
539 
540 
541 
542 
549 


LECTURE  CXXV. 


Liturgy, 553 — 571 

Imposes  unscriptural  restrictions  on  the  clergy,  .         .         .         553 

Baptismal  service,  .........  559 

Liturgy  retains  superstitious  additions  from  the  Romish  church,  567 


LECTURE  CXXVL 

Popular  form  of  church  government,    . 

Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism  compared, 

Principles  of  Congregationalism, 

Things  necessary  for  Congregationalists,    . 


672—583 

572 
574 
577 


LECTURE  CXXVn. 


Personal  religion  necessary  to  ministers, 


Duties  of  ministers, 

Trials  and  difficulties  of  ministers. 


584—590 


585 
588 


LECTURE   CXXVin. 

Personal  religion  continued. 

Necessary  to  a  minister's  usefulness,  .         . 

Necessary  to  his  enjoyment,     .... 


591—596 

591 
594 


LECTURE    LXXXVII. 


DOES    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT    IN    REGENERATION     ACT     DIRECTLY     ON 
THE   sinner's   mind  ? 

Our  next  inquiry  will  be,  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  in  regene- 
ration acts  directly  on  the  mind  itself^  or  on  something  which  is 
extraneous  to  the  mind,  and  which  is  employed  as  a  means  of  pro- 
ducing the  effect. 

In  a  general  view,  what  can  be  more  congruous  to  the  nature 
of  the  subject,  than  the  doctrine,  that  the  eternal,  all-powerful 
Spirit  has  a  direct  access  to  the  minds  which  he  created  and  sus- 
tains, and  that  he  influences  and  governs  them  as  he  pleases  ? 
It  is  clear  that  ive  have  access  to  the  minds  of  men  only  through 
the  medium  of  signs  and  bodily  organs.  Such  is  the  design  of 
our  Creator.  The  sphere  of  action  and  the  degree  and  manner 
of  influence  assigned  to  us,  correspond  with  our  nature  and  rela- 
tions. But  the  influence  which  God  exercises  over  the  minds  of 
men  is,  in  all  respects,  infinitely  superior  to  ours.  To  suppose 
that  his  power  is  subject  to  such  conditions  and  limitations  as  those 
which  regulate  the  power  belonging  to  us,  would  be  to  lose  sight 
of  his  perfections,  and  to  make  him  like  ourselves.  The  God  of 
the  universe  must  be  free  from  all  the  hinderances  and  restrictions 
which  appertain  to  the  exercise  of  the  power  imparted  to  us,  and 
must  be  perfectly  able  to  turn  and  guide,  to  regulate  and  purify 
every  mind,  and  all  minds,  according  to  his  pleasure.  This  is 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  his  Godhead  and  his  complete  do- 
minion over  created  beings.  It  is  involved  in  many  passages  of 
Scripture,  in  which  he  is  expressly  declared  to  have  exercised 

VOL.  in.  1 


2  DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

such  supreme  power.  If  any  one  thinks  that  God  cannot  exert 
this  unlimited  control  over  the  minds  of  men,  I  ask,  what  hinders  ? 
Is  not  infinite  power  sufficient  to  control  finite  power  ?  Has  not 
the  Creator  and  Upholder  of  all  things  power  over  those  who  live 
and  move  and  have  their  being  in  him  ?  If  he  has  not  this 
power,  how  can  he  maintain  his  dominion,  and  do  all  his  pleasure  ? 

But  I  shall  not  stop  with  this  general  view.  There  are  par- 
ticular considerations  which  bear  upon  the  subject,  and  which  I 
shall  now  lay  before  you. 

The  first  consideration  which  occurs  to  me  is  this  ;  that  as  the 
effect  produced  in  regeneration  is  in  the  mind  itself,  so  must  the 
influence  be  which  produces  it.  The  disorder  to  be  remedied  lies 
in  the  heart ;  and  where  but  to  the  heart  is  the  remedy  to  be  ap- 
plied ?  As  to  the  truths  of  religion,  there  is  nothing  which  needs 
to  be  altered  in  any  of  them.  All  that  we  are  required  to  be- 
lieve is  true  ;  all  that  we  are  required  to  love  is  excellent  and 
amiable  ;  and  all  that  we  are  required  to  do  is  reasonable  and 
just.  There  is  no  fault  in  any  of  these  objects.  There  is  nothing 
faulty  anywhere,  except  in  the  mind  itself.  The  whole  evil  to  be 
remedied  lies  there.  And  the  change  to  be  effected  must  be 
effected  there.  Man's  disposition  —  the  state  of  his  affections  — 
is  opposed  to  spiritual  things.  His  heart  is  depraved.  The  divine 
Spirit  must  act  upon  the  heart  itself;  must  so  alter  man's  moral 
state  that,  when  holy  objects  are  presented  to  view,  holy  affections 
will  spontaneously  arise  ;  must  take  away  moral  obliquity,  and 
give  uprightness.  The  sum  of  my  remarks  under  this  head  is, 
that  as  man's  moral  nature  or  heart  is  the  subject  of  the  evil  to  be 
removed  and  the  renewal  to  be  experienced,  it  must  be  the  subject 
of  that  divine  influence  which  removes  the  qvA  and  produces  the 
renewal. 

Secondly  :  no  one  can  conceive  it  to  he  othenvise.  You 
may  employ  such  a '  phraseology  as  will  invest  the  subject  with  an 
ambiguous  generality,  and  will  thus  hold  your  minds  in  an  inde- 
finite, obscure  contemplation  of  it,  and  make  it  difficult  to  know 
what  to  beheve  and  what  to  disbelieve.  But  if  you  bring  the  sub- 
ject near,  and  take  a  distinct  view  of  it,  you  will  find  it  incon- 


DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  6 

ceivable  that  the  Spirit  of  God  in  renewing  the  sinner,  should  act 
upon  anything  but  the  mind  itself.  Upon  what  else  can  he  act  ? 
Do  you  say  he  acts  upon  the  truths  of  religion,  so  as  to  render 
them  effectual ;  that  he  imparts  power  to  motives,  so  that  they 
excite  and  persuade  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe  ?  Let  us 
examine  this  notion.  The  divine  Spirit,  you  say,  acts  upon  the 
truths  of  religion.  But  what  are  the  truths  of  religion,  but  pro- 
positions, written,  spoken,  or  contemplated,  respecting  God  and 
man,  and  other  moral  objects  ?  These  propositions,  which  are 
contained  m  the  Scriptures,  are  immutable.  Nothing  can  be 
added  to  them,  or  taken  from  them.  They  are  just  what  they 
should  be.  The  Spirit  has  fully  revealed  these  truths,  and  in  this 
respect  his  work  is  perfectly  accomplished. 

But  you  say  that  the  Spirit  of  God  imparts  clearness  and  power 
to  divine  truth,  so  that  it  may  be  rightly  apprehended,  and  may 
produce  its  proper  effect :  as  in  natural  things,  an  object  may  be 
taken  from  a  misty,  obscure  atmosphere,  and  placed  in  a  clear 
light.  I  agree  that  there  is  an  obscurity,  which  prevents  the 
truth  from  being  rightly  apprehended  by  the  sinner.  But  where 
does  the  obscurity  lie  ?  In  the  truth  itself,  or  in  the  mind  of  the 
sinner  ?  And  in  order  to  remove  this  obscurity,  is  it  necessary 
that  any  alteration  should  be  made  in  the  truth?  When  we  say 
that  the  Spu-it  of  God  imparts  clearness  to  divine  truth,  we  speak 
of  an  operation  and  an  effect  produced  in  the  mind  itself,  the  truth 
remaining  perfectly  the  same.  To  give  clearness  to  revealed 
truth,  is  to  give  clearness  to  the  minds  of  those  who  contemplate 
it ;  or,  as  the  Apostle  expresses  it,  "  to  open  the  eyes  of  their 
understanding."  Every  object  is  in  the  dark  even  at  noon-day, 
to  one  who  is  blind.  There  is  light  enough,  and  surrounding  ob- 
jects are,  in  themselves,  sufficiently  illuminated.  But  if  you 
would  make  them  clear  to  the  man  who  is  blind,  you  must  open 
his  eyes.  The  illumination  needed  respects  his  organ  of  sight. 
No  change  is  required  in  external  objects.  The  Christian  is  often 
heard  to  say,  "  In  my  unconverted  state,  the  character  of  God 
and  Christ,  and  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  were  all  dark  to 
me.     But  when  the  Spirit  of  God  visited  my  heart,  all  became 


4  DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

light."  To  give  clearness  to  the  truth,  is  to  enlighten  the  mind 
to  behold  it. 

And  what  is  it  to  give  powey-  and  efficacy  to  the  truth  ?  Is 
divine  truth  in  reality  weak  and  inefficient  ?  If  so,  how  does  it 
come  to  have  such  power  over  those  who  are  sanctified  ?  Does 
sanctification  make  an  alteration  in  the  truth  itself,  or  in  the  mind 
which  contemplates  it  ?  Take  the  truth,  that  Go^  so  loved  the 
world  as  to  give  his  Son  to  die  for  us.  How  great  is  its  power 
over  believers !  It  moves  all  their  faculties.  It  controls  their 
hearts  and  their  lives.  But  to  the  proud  and  unbelieving,  the 
same  truth  is  powerless.  Whence  the  difference  ?  The  text, 
John  S:  16,  is  before  the  eyes  of  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever. 
They  both  read  it,  and  read  it  alike.  But  the  effect  is  different, 
and  that  effect  is  in  the  mind.  The  precise  difference  is  this : 
the  believer  discerns  the  excellence  of  the  truth,  and  loves  it,  but 
the  unbeliever  does  not.  The  believer  contemplates  the  com- 
passion and  grace  of  God  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  with  pious  wonder 
and  gratitude,  and  with  a  hearty  resolution  to  live  no  longer  to 
himself,  but  to  him  who  died  for  him.  The  unbeliever  hears  the 
proclamation  of  mercy,  but  hears  not ;  he  sees  the  light  of  the 
gospel,  but  sees  not.  He  is  alive  to  the  world,  but  dead  to 
spiritual  things.  The  power  of  divine  truth  over  the  believer  is 
precisely  this,  he  feels  powerfully  towards  it  —  or  has  a  strong 
affection  for  it  —  loves  it  intensely.  And  the  Spirit  of  God  gives 
power  to  the  truth  by  causing  the  mind  to  discern  it  clearly,  to 
believe  it  firmly,  and  to  exercise  powerful  affections  in  view  of  it. 
He  makes  the  truth  efficacious  by  bringing  the  heart  effectually 
to  love  and  obey  it.  To  suppose  that  the  Spirit  in  the  work  of 
sanctification  acts  upon  anything  extraneous  to  the  mind,  would 
be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  the  subject. 

Do  you  say,  that  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  affects  not  the 
mind  itself,  but  its  actions  —r-  beginning  and  ending  with  them  ? 
But  here  again  we  must  take  care  not  to  be  imposed  upon  by 
mere  sounds.  Actions  imply  an  agent.  They  cannot  exist  by 
themselves,  away  from  the  agent.  To  influence  the  actions  of  the 
mind,  is  to  influence  the  mind  in  acting.  To  cause  right  actions 
is  to  cause  the  mind  to  act  right. 


DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OP    THE    SPIRIT.  5 

Finally,  the  current  language  of  Scripture  implies,  that  the  di- 
vine Spii-it  operates  upon  the  mind  or  heart  itself.  "  The  heart 
of  the  king  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  as  the  rivers  of  water ;  he 
turneth  it  whithersoever  he  will."  "  The  Lord  opened  the  heart 
of  Ljdia,  that  she  attended  to  the  things  which  were  spoken 
of  Paul."  "  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  Spirit  will  I 
put  within  you."  God  enhghtens  the  heart,  renews  and  purifies 
the  heart,  sheds  abroad  his  love  in  the  heart.  And  where  it  is 
said  that  God  influences  the  actions  of  behevers,  it  is  still  said  that 
the  influence  is  upon  and  in  the  agents.  He  works  in  them,  and 
right  willing  and  acting  is  the  effect.  And  when  Christians  pray 
intelligently  for  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  they  have,  I  think, 
no  other  conception,  than  that  the  Spirit  is  to  act  upon  the  mind  or 
heart  itself,  and  to  produce  the  desired  effect  there.  They  are 
sensible  that  the  divine  influence  is  needed  there,  and  there  only  ; 
and  that  if  their  hearts  may  be  made  pure,  all  things  wiU  be  pure 
to  them. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  texts  which  must  be  considered, 
namely,  those  which  speak  of  God  as  renewing  and  sanctifying  his 
people  b^/  the  truth.  "  Sanctify  them  through  the  truth  :  thy 
word  is  truth."  Believers  are  "  bom  again,  not  of  corruptible 
seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and 
abideth  forever."  And  the  Apostle  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I 
have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel."  And  the  Psalmist  says, 
the  word  of  God  enhghtens  and  converts  men. 

In  these  and  other  hke  texts,  the  inspired  writers,  it  is  said, 
plainly  teach  that,  in  the  work  of  conversion  and  sanctification, 
the  divine  Spirit  acts  on  the  mind,  not  directly,  but  indirectly,  that 
is,  through  the  medium  of  the  truth. 

In  reference  to  these  texts,  and  their  bearing  on  the  present 
subject,  I  would  suggest  the  following  things  : 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  found,  that  those  writers  and  preach- 
ers, who  hold  most  decidedly  to  the  direct  and  efficacious  influence 
of  the  Spirit  upon  the  mind,  entertain  as  high  an  opinion,  as  any 
others,  of  the  importance  and  necessity  of  divine  truth  in  the  work 
of  sanctifying  sinners,  and  are  as  active  in  teaching  and  defending 

1* 


6  DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

it.  In  all  this  thej  find  no  practical  difficulty  ;  nor  are  they  aware 
of  any  inconsistency.  Edwards  argued,  I  think  very  conclusively, 
that  the  influence  of  motives,  is  perfectly  consistent  ^\ith  the  effi- 
cacious influence  of  the  Spirit  in  renewing  the  heart ;  —  in  other 
words,  that  the  doctrine  of  God's  direct  and  effectual  agency  on 
the  heart  in  sanctification,  and  the  doctrine  that  he  makes  use  of 
means  in  sanctification,  are  entirely  consistent  with  each  other. 
There  is  no  more  inconsistency  here,  than  in  any  case  where  God 
in  his  providence  employs  means  in  the  accomplishment  of  his 
designs. 

Any  one  who  carefully  considers  the  subject  must  be  satisfied,  that 
the  use  which  God  makes  of  means  in  the  different  departments  of 
,  his  administration,  does  not  detract  in  the  least  from  the  reality  or 
the  greatness  of  the  power  which  he  exercises.  Surely  he  does  not 
resort  to  the  use  of  means  because  of  any  deficiency  in  the  meas- 
ure of  power  which  he  possesses,  or  because  he  is  weary  of  exer- 
cising it.  God's  appointing  means  arises  from  the  perfection  of 
his  wisdom,  not  from  his  desire  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  exerting 
his  omnipotence.  This  remark  applies  particularly  to  the  sancti- 
fying influence  of  the  Spirit.  The  use  which  God  makes  of  divine 
truth,  whether  in  the  commencement  or  in  the  progress  of  sancti- 
fication, does  not  supersede  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  in- 
terfere with  its  direct  bearing  upon  the  heart.  That  agency  may 
evidently  be  as  real,  and  as  great,  and  may  come  to  man's  moral 
nature  as  directly,  as  though  no  means  were  employed.  God  may 
choose  to  sanctify  his  people  by  means  of  the  truth,  not  because 
this  method  of  sanctification  requires  a  less  powerful  and  direct 
agency  of  his  Spirit,  but  because  it  is  more  suitable  to  the  nature 
of  rational  beings,  and  more  agreeable  to  his  wisdom,  —  and  be- 
cause it  is  more  adapted  to  make  his  agency  manifest  to  his  crea- 
tures. If  the  use  of  the  truth  as  a  means  of  sanctification  super- 
sedes the  necessity  of  a  direct  and  efficacious  operation  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  heart,  it  must  be  because  the  truth  has,  in  itself, 
an  efficacy  to  reach  the  heart  and  accomplish  its  renovation,  in- 
dependently of  divine  agency.  But  nothing  is  made  more  certain 
by  experience  and  the  word  of  God,  than  the  utter  inefficacy  of 


DIRECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  7 

truth  to  originate  holiness  in  the  minds  of  the  unrenewed,  or  to 
continue  it  in  the  minds  of  Christians,  without  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Do  you  ask,  why  divine  truth  is  used  at  all  as  a  means  of  regen- 
erating and  sanctifying  the  heart,  if  it  has  in  itself  no  power  to 
accomplish  the  work  ?  I  reply,  that  there  are  evidently  very  im- 
portant reasons  for  the  use  which  is  made  of  the  truth,  though  in 
itself,  independently  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  utterly 
powerless.  Some  of  these  reasons  have  been  already  suggested. 
Man  is  a  rational  and  moral  being,  and  it  seems  plainly  to  follow 
from  his  very  nature,  that  the  exercise  of  holiness  from  its  com- 
mencement, must  take  place  in  view  of  some  portion  of  divine 
truth.  How  can  it  be  conceived  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  his  agency 
ever  so  direct  and  powerful,  can  originate  holy  exercises,  when  no 
holy  object  is  presented  to  the  mind  ?  How  can  love,  or  faith,  or  de- 
sire be  excited,  while  a  person  sees  nothing  to  love,  nothing  to  believe, 
and  nothing  to  desire  ?  The  presence  and  influence  of  suitable  ob- 
jects is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  holy  affection.  So  that  if  holy 
affection  is  ever  actually  to  exist,  it  must  exist  in  view  of  proper 
objects  ;  in  other  words,  it  must  take  place,  while  some  portion  of 
divine  truth  is  contemplated.  To  suppose  that  any  one  loves, 
without  having  before  his  mind  an  object  of  love,  would  be  palpa- 
bly absurd.  But  you  will  see  in  a  moment,  that  divine  truth, 
however  cleai-ly  presented  to  the  mind  of  a  man  while  unregener- 
a'e,  must  fail  of  exciting  any  right  affection.  Di\dne  truth  is  holy. 
The  objects  it  presents,  for  example,  the  character  of  God,  his 
law,  and  his  gospel,  are  all  holy.  The  heart  of  the  unrenewed  is 
unholy.  And  who  does  not  know  what  takes  place,  when  those 
holy  objects  are  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  an  ungodly  man, 
and  when  he  is  required  to  love  with  all  his  heart  a  God,  whose 
character  is  totally  opposed  to  his  disposition  ;  to  receive  a  Saviour 
who  has  no  beauty  in  his  view ;  and  to  render  a  willing  obedience 
to  a  law  which  stands  against  those  interests  to  which  he  is  su- 
premely attached  ?  And  how  is  this  settled  avei-sion  of  his  heart 
to  holy  objects  to  be  displaced,  and  cordial  love  to  be  elicited,  but 
by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?     Three  things  are  here  quite 


»  DIKECT    INFLUENCE    OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

obvious.  First,  God's  effectual  agency.  He  gives  a  new  heart. 
He  regenerates.  Second,  the  use  of  means.  Divine  truth  is 
placed  before  the  mind.  Holy  objects  are  looked  at.  In  other 
words,  motives  to  holy  affections  are  exhibited.  Third,  the  rec- 
tified agency  of  the  regenerated  person.  He  loves.  He  beheves. 
He  obeys.  He  puts  forth  right  affections  and  forms  right  purposes 
in  view  of  divine  truth.  Divine  truth  has  this  influence  upon  him. 
And  it  has  this  influence  upon  him,  he  loves,  beheves,  and  obeys 
in  view  of  divine  truth,  because  the  Spirit  of  God  has  renewed 
his  heart.  A  renewed  and  holy  heart  loves  what  is  holy,  beheves 
what  is  true,  and  does  what  God  commands.  Divine  truth  must 
then  be  held  to  be  a  means  of  sanctification  as  developed  in  holy 
exercises,  because  this  instrumentahty  of  the  truth  is  involved  in  the 
very  nature  of  holy  exercises.  God's  people  cannot  be  actually 
sanctified,  that  is,  holy  affection  cannot  be  produced  and  strength- 
ened in  them,  in  any  other  way  than  through  the  truth.  The 
new  heart,  which  is  given  in  regeneration,  cannot  be  developed 
and  become  a  matter  of  observation  or  of  consciousness,  except 
through  the  truth. 

But  there  is  another  reason  why  the  truth  is  made  the  means 
of  sanctification,  though  it  has  in  itself  no  power  to  sanctify. 
The  reason  is,  that  this  mode  of  sanctifying  makes  it  manifest, 
that  the  work  is  God's  —  that  the  power  which  sanctifies  is  the 
power  of  his  Spirit.  Thus  it  is  represented,  that  God  chose  the 
apostles,  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel,  who  were  but  earthen 
vessels,  as  instruments  of  turning  men  from  darkness  to  light. 
And  we  are  expressly  informed  why  he  did  this,  namely  ;  "  that 
the  excellency  of  the  power  might  be  of  God,  and  not  of  man." 
The  more  weak  and  ineflBcient,  in  themselves,  the  instruments  or 
means  which  were  employed,  the  more  evident  it  was,  that  the  ef- 
fect was  to  be  ascribed  to  God.  Accordingly  the  Apostle  teaches 
the  utter  inefficacy,  the  nothingness,  of  him  who  planteth  and  of 
him  who  watereth  —  that  is,  of  those  who  in  different  ways  labor 
to  propagate  divine  truth  and  to  save  souls,  and  declares  that  all 
the  success  comes  from  God.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that  this 
is  one  of  the  truths  employed  as  a  means  of  sanctification.     Thus 


DIRECT    INFLUENCE     OP    THE     SPIRIT.  9 

divine  truth  and  those  who  make  it  known,  are  manifestly  fit 
means  —  means  well  adapted  to  accomplish  the  great  object  in- 
tended, that  is,  to  glorify  God  by  fixing  all  eyes  and  all  hearts 
upon  him  as  the  supreme  source  of  spiritual  blessings.  If  any 
means  should  be  used  to  promote  the  salvation  of  men,  w^hich 
would  be,  or  appear  to  be,  in  themselves,  adequate  to  produce  the 
effect,  and  whicli  would  thus,  more  or  less,  set  aside  the  necessity 
of  divine  agency ;  that  would  certainly  be  a  very  unfit  means. 
For  nothing  can  be  more  important,  than  that  God  should  be 
brought  into  view,  and  his  glory  illustrated  in  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners. Any  mode  of  proceeding,  therefore,  which  would  tend  to 
obscure  his  glory,  would  be  altogether  unsuitable.  Keeping  this 
principle  in  view,  we  shall  perceive  the  striking  fitness  of  divine 
truth  as  a  means  of  converting  sinners,  while  their  conversion  is 
still  considered  as  resulting  from  the  work  of  God's  Spirit  on  their 
hearts.  It  is  not  only  true  that  the  two  things  are  compatible, 
but  that  the  one  clearly  involves  the  other.  If  God  should  carry 
on  the  work  of  renewing  and  sanctifying  men  without  the  light 
and  influence  of  divine  truth,  (supposing  this  to  be  possible)  would 
not  his  agency  be  concealed  ?  Would  not  his  work  be  done  in 
the  dark,  and  the  glory  of  his  grace  be  obscured  in  the  view  of 
his  redeemed  kingdom  ? 

We  are  then  brought  to  this  result,  that  when  the  inspired  wri- 
ters speak  of  the  word  of  God,  or  divine  truth,  as  having  an 
effectual  influence  to  turn  men  from  sin  and  make  them  holy,  they 
speak  of  it,  not  as  it  is  m  itself,  independently  of  divine  agency, 
but  as  accompanied  and  made  effectual  hy  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Unless  we  understand  the  sacred  writers  in  this 
way,  we  make  them  inconsistent  with  themselves.  For  they  some- 
times represent  the  work  as  accompHshed  by  the  agency  of  God, 
without  any  mention  of  divine  truth  ;  and  sometimes  they  repre- 
sent that  God  does  it  by  or  through  the  truth,  and  sometimes  that 
the  word  of  God  or  the  gospel  does  it.  Just  principles  of  inter- 
pretation require  us  to  unite  these  representations.  God  himself 
converts  and  sanctifies  men.  He  does  the  work.  But  he  does  it 
in  his  own  way,  that  is,  in  connection  with  the  truth,  or  by  means 


10  DIRECT    INFLUENCE     OF    THE    SPIRIT. 

of  his  word  —  making  just  such  a  use  of  divine  truth  as  will  show 
us  most  clearly  how  sinful  and  helpless  we  are  in  ourselves,  and 
how  entirely  dependent  we  are  on  the  grace  of  God  for  the  re- 
newal of  our  hearts,  and  for  the  whole  of  sanctification. 

The  principle  above  laid  down,  may  be  illustrated  by  those  su- 
pernatural works,  which  are  commonly  called  miracles.  The 
analogy,  though  not  exact,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  God  does  em- 
ploy means,  in  themselves  ineffectual,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
his  own  almighty  agency  manifest.  There  was  no  power  in  the 
rod  of  Moses,  in  itself  considered,  or  in  the  act  of  Moses  in 
stretching  out  the  rod,  to  accomplish  the  marvellous  things  which 
took  place  in  Egypt.  Why  did  God  make  use  of  an  instrument 
or  means,  so  destitute  of  all  inherent  efficacy,  except  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  his  own  agency  conspicuous  ?  Again.  In  the 
vision  of  the  dry  bones,  there  was  no  power  in  the  four  winds 
which  the  prophet  invoked,  or  in  the  prophet  who  invoked  them, 
to  cause  the  dry  bones  to  live.  And  it  is  evident  that  God  ap- 
pointed such  feeble  means  to  be  used,  so  that  it  might  be  seen  and 
acknowledged  by  all,  that  he  himself  accomplished  the  work. 
And  why,  except  to  make  his  own  divine  power  visible,  did  Christ 
apply  common  clay  to  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  in  restoring  his 
sight  ?  And  to  go  to  the  Old  Testament  history  again,  why  did 
God  require  Gideon's  army  to  be  reduced  to  a  very  small  number, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  them  from  boasting  of  their 
own  power,  and  making  it  manifest,  that  the  victory  was  to  be  as- 
cribed to  God  himself  ? 

These  and  other  examples  of  supernatural  works  are  sufficient 
to  satisfy  us,  that  God  may,  for  very  important  purposes,  use  di- 
vine truth  as  a  means  of  converting  and  sanctifying  men,  though 
it  has  no  inherent  efficacy  to  accomplish  the  work. 


LECTURE    LXXXVIII 


DIRECT  AGENCY  OP  THE  SPIRIT  CONSISTENT  WITH  MORAL  AQENCT. 
QUESTION  ABOUT  A  PHYSICAL  INFLUENCE  AND  PHYSICAL 
CHANGE.  WHY  SHOULD  MINISTERS  PREACH  ?  DUTY  OF  SIN- 
NERS  TO   BECOME   HOLY.      EXERCISES    OF   THE   AWAKENED. 

Is  a  direct  agency  of  Q-od  upon  the  mind  itself,  effectually  re- 
moving its  sinfulness  and  making  it  spiritual  and  holy,  consistent 
with  free  moral  agency  ? 

In  replying  to  this  inquiry,  I  shall  take  it  for  granted,  that  a 
dependent  being  may  be  a  free  moral  agent.  If  any  one  denies 
this,  he  ought  to  show  why  he  denies  it.  He  ought  to  show  what 
there  is  in  moral  agency,  which  is  incompatible  with  a  state  of 
dependence,  or  what  there  is  in  a  state  of  dependence  which  is 
incompatible  with  moral  agency.  Till  this  is  done,  (and  it  cannot 
be  done  without  denying  the  existence  of  accountable  beings,)  I 
shall  deem  it  proper  to  consider  it  as  a  settled  principle,  that  a 
dependent  being  may  be  a  free  moral  agent.  And  then  I  ask, 
who  can  set  limits  to  his  dependence  ?  If  complete  dependence 
takes  away  moral  agency,  any  degree  of  dependence  must  dimm- 
ish it ;  and  men  cannot  be  entirely  free  and  moral,  unless  they  are 
entirely  independent.  But  such  independence  cannot  be  ascribed 
to  created  beings  by  any  man  in  his  right  mind. 

The  fact  is,  that  there  is  not  a  single  attribute  or  circumstance 
of  moral  agency  which  implies  any  such  thing  as  freedom  from 
dependence  on  God.  Reason  is  an  essential  attribute  of  a  moral 
agent.     But  a  man  is  none  the  less  rational,  because  God  makes 


12  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

him  rational,  or  because  he  exercises  his  reason  under  the  divine 
control,  or  under  the  influence  of  causes  appointed  bj  divine  wis- 
dom. Again.  Voluntariness  is  an  attribute  of  a  free  moral 
agent.  And  surely  a  man  is  none  the  less  voluntary,  because  God 
makes  him  voluntary ;  and  none  the  less  free  from  compulsion, 
because  God  orders  it  so  that  he  shall  be  free.  Nor  has  man  any 
less  sense  of  his  obhgation  to  do  what  is  right  and  avoid  what  is 
wrong,  because  God  has  implanted  such  a  sense  within  him.  You 
cannot  mention  any  attribute  or  circumstance  of  a  moral  agent, 
which  is  at  all  inconsistent  with  his  being  constantly  and  wholly 
dependent  on  God.  Indeed,  it  is  God,  and  God  only,  that,  by 
his  constant  agency,  makes  us  free,  moral  and  accountable.  It  is 
in  him  we  have  our  being,  as  moral  agents. 

But  although  there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  suppose  that  free 
moral  agency  is  incompatible  with  a  state  of  dependence  on  God, 
and  although  it  is  strange  that  such  a  supposition  should  be  made, 
after  moral  agents  have  existed  and  acted  thousands  of  years  in  a 
state  of  dependence,  without  having  experienced  any  inconveni- 
ence or  embarrassment  from  it ;  yet  the  supposition  is  made  ;  and 
the  minds  of  many  are  involved  in  perplexity  on  the  subject,  both 
by  the  ambiguity  of  terms  and  the  sophistry  of  arguments.  I 
shall  therefore  offer  a  few  remarks  for  the  purpose  of  clearing  the 
subject  of  obscurity,  and  placing  it  in  a  satisfactory  light.  My 
remarks  will  relate  partic\ilarly  to  the  subject  before  us  —  the  re- 
generating influence  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  It  is  most  unreasonable  to  think,  that  he  who  created  the 
soul,  and  who  constantly  preserves  it  in  being,  cannot  exert  what- 
ever influence  he  pleases  upon  it,  in  perfect  consistency  with  its 
moral  nature.  God  has  designed  us  to  be  moral,  accountable  be- 
ings ;  and  we  are  sure  he  will  never  do  any  thing  to  interfere 
with  his  design.  Accordingly,  when  we  read  in  Scripture  the 
strongest  representations  of  God's  influence  upon- man,  such  as 
his  creating  him  anew,  working  in  him  to  will  and  to  do,  etc.,  we 
are  to  consider  it  as  certain,  that  all  this  influence  is  exercised  in 
perfect  harmony  with  our  spiritual  nature,  and  does  not,  in  the 
least,  supersede  our  free  and  accountable  agency.     Let  the  divine 


WOKK    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  '  13 

influence  rise  ever  so  high,  and  produce  effects  ever  so  astonish- 
ing, we  may  always  rest  assured  that  it  operates  in  such  a  manner 
as  not  to  violate  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us.  This  the 
sacred  writers  took  for  granted,  and  accordingly  never  made  any 
attempt  either  to  prove  or  to  explain  it. 

2.  That  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Spirit  does  not  in  the 
least  disturb  the  exercise  of  man's  moral  agency,  appears  from 
the  nature  of  the  effects  produced.  Our  moral  agency  has  been 
disturbed  by  sin.  The  divine  Spirit  removes  that  disturbance. 
Does  this  interfere  with  moral  agency  ?  The  Spirit  of  God  comes 
to  one  who  is  a  slave,  and  makes  him  free.  Does  this  interfere 
with  his  freedom  ?  Does  it  interrupt  a  man's  liberty,  to  break 
the  chains  which  bind  him,  to  open  the  prison  doors  and  help  him 
to  escape  ?  Does  it  interfere  with  a  man's  power  of  choice,  to 
mfluence  him  to  choose  what  is  right  ?  The  Spirit  takes  a  dis- 
eased moral  agent,  and  makes  him  healthy  —  one  who  is  weak, 
and  makes  him  strong  —  one  who  is  dead  in  sin,  and  makes  him 
alive.  Now  does  not  one  who  is  alive  and  healthy  and  strong,  put 
forth  as  much  agency,  and  as  good  an  agency,  as  one  who  is  dis- 
eased and  weak  and  dead  ? 

It  appears  then  perfectly  manifest  from  the  nature  of  the  effects 
produced  in  regeneration,  that  the  efiicacious  influence  of  the 
Spirit  acting  directly  upon  the  heart  and  changing  it  from  stone 
to  flesh,  from  impurity  to  purity,  from  enmity  to  love,  neither  su- 
persedes nor  interrupts  man's  free  moral  agency. 

It  has  been  already  intimated,  that  the  power  we  possess  over 
our  fellow  men  is  very  restricted.  We  cannot  send  into  their 
hearts  a  regenerating,  purifying  influence.  Without  the  presence 
and  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit,  neither  men  nor  angels  could 
turn  one  sinner  from  darkness  to  light.  Nor  could  we,  without 
that  Spirit,  enlighten  and  sanctify  our  own  hearts.  This  we  have 
learned  from  experience,  as  well  as  from  the  word  of  God.  And 
"who  does  not  acknowledge  this  in  his  prayers  ?  What  Christian 
does  not  desire  the  Holy  Spirit  to  dwell  in  him,  and  to  exert  a ' 
sanctifying  influence  upon  him  ?  Who  that  has  been  taught  of 
God,  will  not  say,  let  the   Spirit  come  directly  to  my  heart,  and 

VOL.    III.  2 


14  QUESTIONS    RELATING    TO    THE 

work  there  mightily  to  subdue  the  power  of  sin,  and  to  adorn  me 
with  the  beauties  of  hoUness  ?  And  yet  it  would  appear  from  the 
speculations  of  some  men,  professing  to  be  Christians,  that  they 
would  choose  not  to  be  subject  to  any  high  degree  of  the  Spirit's 
influence,  lest  it  should  somehow  injure  their  free  agency.  Away 
with  all  speculations  which  contradict  the  most  just  and  holy  de- 
sires of  the  regenerate  soul  ! 

I  shall  here  advert  again  to  the  inquiry,  so  often  raised  at  the 
present  day,  Avhether  God  puts  forth  a  physical  influence  in  re- 
generation, and  whether  the  change  produced  is  a  pliyucal  change. 
This  inquiry,  as  I  before  remarked,  cannot  be  intelligently  an- 
swered, without  determining  the  exact  sense  in  which  the  word 
physical  is  used. 

The  word  sometimes  relates  to  natural  or  material  things,  in 
distinction  from  moral  or  spiritual.  Thus  the  science  of  physics 
is  the  science  of  natural  philosophy,  the  science  of  the  material 
world,  in  distinction  from  the  moral  world.  Accordingly,  a  physi- 
cal power  is  a  power  which  belongs  to  natural  or  material  things, 
as  the  general  power  of  attraction,  the  electric  power,  etc.  A 
physical  substance  is  matter ;  and  a  physical  change  is  a  change 
which  takes  place  in  a  material  substance.  This  is  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  something  of  this  meaning  is  apt  to 
mingle  itself  with  other  uses  of  the  word  where  the  sense  is  in- 
tended to  be  difierent.  Now  if  the  word  is  taken  in  this  sense, 
the  question  is  easily  answered.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  in 
regeneration  can  no  more  be  called  a  physical  influence,  than  it 
can  be  called  an  electrical  or  a  chemical  influence.  And  the 
change  which  takes  place,  is  not  produced  in  a  material  substance, 
and  has  nothing  of  a  physical  or  material  nature. 

The  word  is  sometimes  applied  in  a  secondary  sense,  to  the 
mind.,  and  has  a  meaning  allied  to  the  one  abovementioned,  denoting 
whatever  does  not  belong  to  moral  objects.  Thus  we  say,  man  has 
faculties  of  mind  and  incHnations,  for  example,  understanding, 
memory,  love  of  knowledge,  and  love  of  offspring,  which  are  not  strict- 
ly of  a  moral  nature ;  and  these  are  called  natural  faculties  and 
affections,  and  sometimes,  though  less  frequently  and  less  properly, 


WORK    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  15 

physical,  in  contradistinction  to  conscience,  which  is  called  the 
moral  faculty,  and  to  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  called  the 
moral  sense,  and  love  to  God  and  man,  which  is  strictly  an  affection 
of  a  moral  nature.  In  reference  to  this  use  of  the  word,  we  say, 
the  change  in  regeneration  is  not  physical,  as  it  does  not  primarily 
take  place  in  the  understanding,  or  memory,  or  in  what  are  called 
the  natural  affections. 

In  opposition  to  the  Pelagian  heresy,  the  word  physical  came 
to  be  used  to  denote  an  influence  beyond  the  influence  of  moral 
considerations,  or  of  moral  suasion,  or  as  we  commonly  say,  be- 
yond the  influence  of  truth,  or  the  influence  of  rational  motives, 
presented  to  the  mind  of  a  sinner.  Pelagians  held,  that  moral 
considerations  are,  of  themselves,  sufficient  to  influence  the  sinner 
to  obey  the  gospel.  The  orthodox  have  always  held,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  must  cause  a  change  in  man's  disposition  or  moral  nature, 
before  divine  truth  can  be  rightly  received,  and  produce  right  affec- 
tions. This  change  they  sometimes  called  a  physical  change,  and 
the  influence  which  produces  it,  a  physical  influence,  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  moral  suasion  of  Pelagians.  Now  if  the  word  physical 
is  used  to  signify  that  change  in  man's  moral  nature,  temper,  dis- 
position, or  heart,  which  is  pre-requisite  to  any  right  influence  of 
motives ;  then  the  change  must  be  called  physical,  and  the  influ- 
ence which  produces  it  must  be  called  a  physical  influence,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  mere  influence  of  motives  presented  to  the 
view  of  an  unregenerate  man.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  Owen 
and  other  older  divines  used  the  word.  They  evidently  meant  to 
signify  that,  in  regeneration,  a  divine  influence  is  exerted  beyond 
the  influence  of  truth,  or  moral  suasion,  and  that  a  change  is  ef- 
fected in  the  state  of  the  mind  preparatory  to  right  exercises.  As 
this  was  evidently  their  meaning,  we  ought  by  no  means  to  repre- 
sent them  as  holding  to  a  physical  influence  of  the  Spirit  and  a 
physical  regeneration,  in  the  sense  which  the  word  now  conveys. 
But  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration  may  properly 
enough  be  called  a  moral  influence,  though  not  in  the  sense  of 
ancient  or  modern  Pelagians.  It  is  the  influence  of  a  Being  pos- 
sessed of  moral  perfections,  exerted  upon  a  depraved  moral  agent, 


16  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

and  producing  a  change  in  his  moral  disposition,  and  consequently 
in  his  moral  actions.  As  however,  the  mere  influence  of  moral 
considerations  has  commonly  been  called  moral  influence,  or  moral 
suasion,  we  cannot  use  the  phrase  in  a  higher  sense  without  being 
liable  to  be  misunderstood.  We  shall  therefore  be  more  likely  to 
avoid  mistake,  and  to  express  exactly  what  we  intend,  if  we  speak 
of  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  a  special  or  supernat- 
vral  influence,  and  of  the  effect  produced,  as  a  moral  or  spiritual 
■change,  a  change  in  the  temper  or  spirit  of  the  mind,  or,  more 
simply,  a  change  of  heart. 

It  is  the  fashion  of  some  late  writers  to  give  to  the  word  moral 
a  very  narrow  sense,  representing  it  as  denoting  nothing  but  re- 
gpondhle  actions^  actions  or  exercises  for  which  a  man  is  con- 
sciously praise-worthy,  or  blame-worthy,  and  for  which  he  is  to 
give  account  to  the  Supreme  Judge.  But  the  same  writers  do  not 
hesitate  to  go  beyond  that  narrow  sense,  and  to  ascribe  to  man 
Ta.OTs\  faculties,  a  moral  existence,  and  moral  relations,  for  which 
surely  he  is  not  responsible.  The  fact  is,  that  convenience  re- 
quires the  word  to  be  used  with  considerable  latitude ;  and  any 
one  who  attempts  to  restrict  it  exactly  to  one  single  meaning,  will 
involve  himself  in  needless  difficulties. 

Owen,  Edwards,  Dwight,  and  Calvinists  in  general,  say,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  produces  a  change  of  heart  antecedent  to  right 
exercises  —  that  he  gives  to  the  soul  a  new  disposition  or  taste,  a 
principle  of  love  and  obedience.  There  are  some  who  would 
stigmatize  this  opinion,  by  charging  its  advocates  with  holding  to 
a  physical  regeneration,  thus  substituting  a  contemptuous  epithet 
very  improperly  apphed,  in  place  of  a  valid  argument.  But  I 
have  before  suggested,  that  those  who  thus  decry  what  they  call  a 
physical  change,  do  themselves  really  hold  to  it.  For  they  say 
that  there  is  in  the  mind  of  fallen  man,  previously  to  all  conscious 
exercise,  a  tendency  or  disposition  to  sin,  which  is  not  sinful,  and 
which  is  not  of  a  moral  nature,  but  merely  physical.  But  they  hold 
that  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Spirit  does  remove  this 
prevailing  tendency  to  sin,  and  impart  the  opposite,  that  is,  a  ten- 
dency to  holiness,  though  this  tendency,  or  disposition,  previous 


WORK    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  17 

to  voluntary  action,  is  not,  they  say,  of  a  moral  nature,  and  of 
course,  is  merely  phi/sical.  Thus  it  is  obviously  and  emphatically 
true,  that  in  regard  to  this  point,  thei/  are  the  men  who  hold  to  a 
physical  regeneration.  Against  this  imputation  I  feel  myself  and 
those  with  whom  I  agree,  to  be  sufficiently  guarded,  as  we  consider 
both  the  propensity  to  sin  in  the  depraved  heart,  and  the  propen- 
sity to  holiness  in  the  renewed,  to  be  strictly  a  moral  propensity, 
and  to  be  the  essential  element  of  a  character  morally  good  or 
bad. 

One  thing  more  in  regard  to  the  particular  subject  under  con- 
sideration. If  any  assert,  as  some  do,  that  God  can  influence  a 
free  moral  agent  in  no  other  way  than  by  rational  considerations 
addressed  to  the  mind,  I  ask,  how  he  knows  this  ?  How  does  he 
come  to  be  assured,  that  God,  who  made  the  soul,  cannot  work  in 
it  such  a  disposition  or  state,  that  it  shall  love  holy  objects  as  soon 
as  they  are  perceived  ?  —  that  God  cannot  jjre-dispose  the  heart 
to  receive  the  truth  —  that  he  cannot  give  a  right  disposition  in 
regard  to  the  truth,  before  the  truth  is  received  ?  How  does  any 
one  know,  that  God  cannot  so  form  the  soul  at  first,  or  so  renew 
it  soon  after  it  begins  to  exist,  that  it  shall  certainly  put  forth  right 
affections  as  soon  as  it  apprehends  any  objects  of  affection  ?  And 
if  an  adult  person,  who  has  been  an  active  opposer  of  religion, 
closes  his  eyes  in  sleep  at  night  with  a  heart  full  of  enmity  to  God, 
and  if  the  moment  he  awakes  he  is  conscious  of  a  new  affection  — 
if  his  first  thought  is  of  God  and  his  first  emotion  is  love  to  God  and 
dehght  in  his  perfections ;  would  he  not  have  reason  to  thank  God 
for  the  change  which  had  been  wrought  in  his  heart  during  his 
sleep,  or  at  the  moment  of  awaking,  resulting  in  new  affections, 
and  in  a  new  fife  ?  If  God  should  be  pleased  to  send  forth  a 
renovating  influence  into  the  heart  of  any  one  even  in  this  man- 
ner, who  would  have  any  reason  to  question  the  reahty  of  the 
change,  because  it  was  thus  effected  ? 

An  important  question  may  here  be  considered  in  relation  to  the 
duty  of  gospel  ministers.  It  is  a  question  which  is  apt  to  arise  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  have  not  a  sufficiently  strong  confidence  in 
God,  and  whose  want  of  success  exposes  them  to  discouragement : 

2* 


1§  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

—  If  our  faithfully  presenting  the  great  truths  of  Christianity  to 
the  minds  of  sinners,  and  laboring  to  jjersuade  them  to  repent,  can- 
not ensure  success  ;  then  why  should  we  be  engaged  in  this  work  f 
If  those  who  plant  and  those  who  ivater  are  nothing,  and  the  in- 
crease is  all  of  God  ;  then  why  should  we  plant  and  water  9  Why 
not  stand  still,  and  refer  the  lohole  ivork  of  saving  sinners  to 

aod? 

I  answer,  first ;  the  single  fact  of  God's  requiring  us  to  teach 
the  truths  of  revelation  to  our  fellow-men,  and  to  endeavor  to  per- 
suade  them  to  repent,  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  us,  that  this  is  our 
proper   work,  and  to  excite  us  diligently  to   perform  it.      The 
Prophet  Ezekiel  was  commanded  to  speak  God's  word  to  the  peo- 
ple, whether  they  would  hear  or  not,  and  he  readily  complied. 
Nor  did  he  desist  from  the  work  appointed  to  him,  because  the 
people   were   hard-hearted   and   rebellious.      And   he   promptly 
obeyed  the  divine  direction,  to  call  upon  the  dry  bones  to  live, 
though  he  was  aware  that  his  word  must,  in  itself,  be  totally  ineffi- 
cacious.    And  how  readily  did  Moses,  in  obedience  to  God,  call 
again  and  again  upon  the  King  of  Egypt  to  let  the  Israehtes  go 
out,  although   he  was  expressly   told  beforehand,  that  Pharaoh 
would  refuse  to  comply.     The  command  of  God  is  itself,  in  all 
cases,  a  sufficient  reason  for  our  obedience,  however  useless  it  may 
appear  to  our  limited  faculties.     If  then  we  could  not  conceive  how 
our  teaching  the  truths  of  the  gospel  would  be  of  any  use  ;  it 
would  still  be  wrong  for  us  to  neglect  the  work,  or  to  go  about  it 
with  a  reluctant,  divided  mind. 

But,  secondly,  although  our  labor  in  preaching  the  gospel,  taken 
by  itself,  separately  from  the  blessing  of  God,  would  be  of  no  avail ; 
yet,  when  attended  with  the  promised  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  has  a  wonderful  energy.  The  truth  is  thus  clothed  with  power. 
And  those  who  preach  it,  though  consciously  weak,  and  insufficient 
for  the  work  assigned  to  them,  derive  strength  and  sufficiency  from 
above.  If  the  divine  Spirit  is  with  them,  they  can  do  all  things. 
They  are  strong  in  the  Lord  —  strong  to  turn  the  wicked  from  the 
error  of  their  ways,  and  to  edify  the  church.  They  become  a 
life-giving  savor.     Through  them,  as  God's  ministers,  sinners  are 


WORK    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  19 

born  again,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  enlarged.  And  what- 
ever may  be  present  appearances,  if  those  who  preach  the  gospel 
are  faithful  to  their  trust,  and  seek  the  blessing  of  God,  thej  will 
not  labor  in  vain.  Sooner  or  later  they  will  have  success  —  I  say 
not  how  much.  But  any  success  in  such  a  cause  is  a  great  and 
inestimable  good,  and  will  be  followed  by  glorious  consequences 
to  them  and  to  others.  Here  is  matter  of  encouragement.  If 
you  go  forth  to  the  work  in  the  spirit  of  love,  and  perseveringly 
preach  the  gospel  in  its  simplicity,  trusting  in  God  for  success,  you 
will  promote  the  glory  of  his  grace  and  win  souls  to  Christ. 

What  then  is  the  specific  influence  of  divine  truth,  when  accom- 
panied by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Is  this  influence  a  mat- 
ter of  consciousness  ?     And  can  it  be  described  ?     I  think  it  can. 

First.  Divine  truth  in  the  hands  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  convinces 
men  of  sin.  To  be  convinced  of  sin,  is  to  feel  the  influence  of  a 
particular  portion  of  divine  truth.  The  divine  law,  or  the  truth 
contained  in  the  law,  had  this  influence  upon  the  Apostle  Paul. 
He  says,  "  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law.  For  I  had  not 
known  lust,  (sinful  desire,)  except  the  law  had  said,  thou 
shalt  not  covet "  —  "I  was  alive  without  the  law  once."  This  ex- 
presses his  want  of  conviction,  and  his  confidence  in  his  own  good- 
ness. "  But  when  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I 
died. — And  the  commandment  which  was  ordained  to  fife,  I 
found  to  be  unto  death."  The  proper  consideration  of  the  law 
finally  produced  the  conviction  described  in  the  following  words. 
"  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing. 
For  to  will  is  present  with  me ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is 
good  I  find  not."  Such  was  the  influence  of  the  law  upon  Paul ; 
and  such,  in  substance,  is  its  influence  upon  all  intelligent  Chris- 
tians. The  truth  uttered  by  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was 
the  means  employed  by  the  Spirit  to  convince  men  of  sin,  and  to 
lead  them  to  inquire  what  they  should  do  to  be  saved.  Divine 
truth  under  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  discloses  to 
sinners  at  the  present  day,  the  wickedness  of  their  hearts,  and 
their  exposure  to  endless  punishment,  and  shows  them  that  they 
are  utterly  lost,  unless  God  is  pleased  to  have  mercy  upon  them. 


20  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

It  is  manifest  that  divine  truth  is  adapted  to  produce  this  ef- 
fect ;  —  that  it  has  in  its  own  nature  a  real  fitness  to  convince 
men  of  sin,  if  not  resisted  and  counteracted  bj  the  perverseness  of 
their  hearts ;  just  as  the  shining  of  the  sun  is  fitted  to  give  men 
light,  unless  they  close  their  eyes  against  it.  In  regard  to  divine 
truth,  all  the  want  of  fitness  hes  in  the  hearts  of  sinners.  All  the 
unfitness  or  want  of  adaptedness  which  exists,  is  found  in  them. 
As  soon  as  their  consciences  are  awakened  and  their  hearts  opened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  just  as  they  are, 
have  a  perfect  adaptedness  to  convince  them  of  sin.  Good  seed 
is  adapted  to  vegetate  and  grow  and  bear  fii-uit  in  good  ground, 
but  not  in  a  bed  of  sand. 

Another  portion  of  divine  truth  is  efficacious  to  heget  faith  in 
Christ.  I  now  speak  with  reference  to  those  whose  hearts  the 
grace  of  God  has  prepared.  The  gospel  declares  the  love  of  God 
in  sending  his  Son  to  save  them  that  are  lost.  It  presents  Christ 
Jesus  before  them  in  all  his  excellence  and  glory,  and  in  his 
ability  to  save  to  the  uttermost.  And  the  efibct  of  divine  truth, 
thus  brought  before  the  minds  of  convinced  and  humbled  sinners, 
is  saving  faith.  They  receive  Christ  in  all  his  fulness.  They 
trust  in  him.  They  choose  to  be  in  subjection  to  him.  Thus 
faith,  which  is  the  gift  of  God,  takes  place  in  them  as  the  proper 
effect  of  gospel  truth.  Truth  is  the  means,  and  the  necessary 
means,  of  bringing  them  to  believe.  "  For  how  can  they  believe 
on  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?"  How  can  they  trust  in 
a  Saviour  who  has  not  been  made  known  to  them  ? 

Divine  truth  has  an  influence  in  eliciting  and  increasing  all 
holy  affections.  God  is  infinitely  holy,  wise  and  good.  This  is  a 
primary  truth.  The  believer  contemplates  this  truth.  He  be- 
holds the  glory  of  God ;  and  beholding,  he  loves  and  adores. 
Such  is  the  influence  which  this  portion  of  truth  has  upon  the 
renovated  heart.  Again.  There  are  truths  which,  when  clearly 
presented  to  the  mind,  and  rightly  considered,  beget  godly  sorrow, 
humility,  and  self-abhorrence.  There  are  other  truths  which 
impart  strength  and  firmness  to  the  behever,  and  so  prepare  him 
for  arduous  duties  and  severe  sufferings.     Other  portions  of  truth 


WORK     OF    THE     SPIRIT.  21 

excite  his  compassion  for  the  afflicted,  and  his  love  to  the  souls 
of  men.  And  other  truths  make  his  heart  tender  and  kind  to- 
wards those  who  have  injured  him,  and  induce  him  sincerely  to 
forgive  them,  and  to  labor  and  pray  for  their  good.  There  are 
truths  too,  which  produce  tranquillity  and  peace  in  times  of  afflic- 
tion and  danger,  and  fill  the  heart  with  unutterable  joy.  Indeed 
the  believer  has  no  right  exercises  of  mind,  which  are  not  pro- 
duced, instrumentally,  by  the  contemplation  of  some  part  of  divine 
truth.  If  we  would  excite  and  strengthen  any  Christian  grace  in 
ourselves,  we  must  familiarize  our  minds  to  a  fit  portion  of  truth. 
And  if  we  would  excite  and  strengthen  any  Christian  grace  in 
others,  we  must  present  a  fit  portion  of  truth  to  their  attentive 
minds,  and  lead  them  to  dwell  upon  it  in  devout  meditation.  We 
are  rational  and  moral  beings,  and  are  made  to  be  influenced  and 
governed  by  rational  and  moral  considerations,  that  is,  by  divine 
truth.  And  if  we  were  rightly  disposed,  how  great  would  be  the 
power  of  truth  over  our  hearts  and  lives !  Under  its  efficacious 
influence,  how  should  we  grow  in  grace  and  be  adorned  with  the 
beauties  of  holiness !  And  how  deplorable  is  that  blindness  of 
mind  and  hardness  of  heart,  which  prevents  this  blessed  influence 
of  divine  truth,  and  makes  that,  which  should  be  a  savor  of 
life  unto  life,  a  savor  of  death  unto  death  ! 

Is  it,  properly  speaking,  the  duty  of  sinners  to  turn  from  sin, 
and  to  become  obedient  and  holy  ? 

It  may  seem  strange  that  any  doubt  should  be  entertained  on 
this  subject.  But  inasmuch  as  the  question  often  arises  in  the 
minds  of  men,  it  may  be  of  use  to  give  it  a  brief  reply. 

That  sinners  are  bound  in  duty  to  become  obedient  and  holy, 
is  evident  from  the  simple  fact,  that  G-od  requires  it  of  them.  He 
commands  them  to  repent  and  be  converted  ;  to  cleanse  their 
hands  and  purify  their  hearts  ;  to  love  God  supremely,  and  to  be 
holy  as  he  is  holy.  Now  the  commands  of  such  a  being  as  God 
are  perfectly  just  and  reasonable,  and  it  is  the  indispensable 
duty  of  all  men  to  obey  them.  Rational  and  accountable  crea- 
tures are  most  evidently  bound  to  conform  to  the  requirements 


22  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

of  their  righteous  and  benevolent  Creator.  To  deny  that  men 
are  under  obligation  to  love  God  supremely  and  to  obey  all  his 
commands,  is  to  deny  that  he  is  worthy  of  our  love,  and  to 
charge  him  with  giving  commands  which  are  unjust  and  op- 
pressive. 

That  it  is  the  duty  of  sinners  to  repent  and  become  holy,  is  the 
decision  of  conscience.  If  conscience  is  awake  and  faithful,  it 
will  make  this  decision  clearly  and  strongly.  If  I  am  conscious 
of  being  a  sinner,  I  am  conscious  of  being  what  I  ought  not  to 
be.  And  this  is  the  same  as  being  conscious  that  I  ought  to  be 
otherwise.  If  any  one  is  insensible  of  his  blame-worthiness  in 
being  a  sinner,  and  of  his  obligation  to  be  obedient  and  holy,  his 
"  conscience  is  seared  with  a  hot  iron."  The  ministers  of  Christ 
vrell  know,  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit  visits  the  souls  of  sinners 
and  causes  the  light  of  divine  truth  to  shine  within  them,  they 
no  longer  evade  their  obligation  to  obey  God.  Their  being  sinful 
is,  in  their  enlightened  judgment,  the  very  reason  why  they 
should  repent ;  and  their  being  exceedingly  depraved,  is  so 
much  the  more  urgent  reason  for  their  becoming  penitent  and 
holy. 

I  have  made  these  remarks,  not  because  there  is  any  uncer- 
tainty attending  the  subject,  but  because  this  is  a  point  on  which 
the  minds  of  the  impenitent  and  unawakened  are  full  of  fatal 
error.  By  the  practice  of  sin,  men  stupefy  their  moral  feelings. 
Through  the  deceitfulness  of  their  hearts,  they  think,  that  as 
they  are  unholy,  they  cannot  be  justly  required  to  be  holy  — 
that  as  they  are  enemies  to  God,  their  enmity  is  not  their  fault, 
and  that  they  are  under  no  obligation  to  love  God.  Thus  they 
make  sin  an  excuse  for  itself.  A  deceived  heart  has  turned  them 
aside.  They  see  not,  because  they  shut  their  eyes.  They  hear 
not,  because  they  stop  their  ears.  By  their  hardness  and  impeni- 
tence, they  exclude  themselves  from  the  blessmgs  of  salvation,  and 
treasure  up  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath. 

In  what  light  are  we  to  regard  those  exercises  of  aivaJcened 
sinners,   which  usually   take  place  previously   to   I'egeneration? 


WORKS    OF    THE    SPIRIT.  23 

The  exercises  referred  to  are,  convictions  of  conscience  as  to  the 
evil  and  danger  of  sin  ;  fears  of  divine  Avrath  ;  strong  desires 
after  happiness,  together  with  all  the  serious  meditations,  prayers, 
and  other  efiforts  which  are  common  in  such  cases. 

My  first  remark  in  reply  to  this  inquiry,  is,  that  these  exer- 
cises are  not  to  be  considered  as  having,  in  any  degree,  the  nature 
of  holiness.  Holiness  is  peculiar  to  the  regenerate.  "  He  that 
loveth  is  born  of  God."  Whatever  may  be  the  feelings  and 
actions  of  the  unrenewed  ;  however  clear  their  convictions  of  sin ; 
however  strongly  excited  their  natural  affections ;  how  much 
soever  they  may  do  in  the  way  of  external  reformation,  and  how 
earnest  soever  they  may  be  in  their  attention  to  the  means  of 
grace  ;  they  are  still  destitute  of  holiness. 

But  may  not  awakened  sinners  make  some  approximation  to 
holiness  ?  By  their  earnest  endeavors  may  they  not  attain  to  a 
condition  less  guilty  and  wretched,  and  nearer  to  that  of  be- 
lievers ? 

Reply.  Sinners  in  the  state  referred  to  may  differ  widely  from 
each  other,  as  to  the  measure  of  their  sinfulness.  Their  unholy 
affections  and  actions  may  be  criminal  in  very  different  degrees. 
And  if  the  question  is,  whether  sinners,  while  making  the  efforts 
referred  to,  are  chargeable  with  less  criminality  than  those  who 
are  in  a  state  of  carnal  security ;  I  am  unable  to  give  any  answer 
which  will  hold  true  in  all  cases.  There  is,  in  this  respect,  as 
great  a  variety  among  awakened  sinners,  as  among  the  unawak- 
ened.  But  it  is,  I  apprehend,  a  general  fact,  that  the  exercises 
of  awakened  sinners,  while  impenitent,  do  not  grow  less  sinful, 
but  the  contrary.  And  they  are  commonly  convinced  of  this,  in 
proportion  as  they  become  acquainted  with  their  own  hearts.  To 
this  conviction  they  indeed  come  reluctantly.  They  hope  as  long 
as  they  can,  that  they  shall  succeed  in  their  endeavors  to  sub- 
due sin  and  to  obtain  holiness.  But  so  far  as  God  gives  them 
light,  they  see  that  their  unregenerate  efforts  to  improve  their 
condition  are  in  vain  ;  that  they  grow  nothing  better,  but  rather 
worse  ;  and  that  their  selfish  and  stubborn  hearts  are  not  to  be 
changed  by  such  means  as  these.     And  it  is  sometimes  the  case, 


24  QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  THE 

that  sinners  are  conscious  of  the  most  perverse  and  criminal  feel- 
ings a  short  time  previous  to  their  renewal.  But  whether  this  is 
the  case  or  not,  thej  are  at  length  taught,  by  their  own  expe- 
rience, that  the  new  birth  is  "  not  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 
God." 

That  sinners,  while  impenitent,  do  not  improve  their  condition, 
is  manifest  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  If  it  is  their  duty  to 
repent,  and  obey  the  gospel,  it  follows,  that  by  continuing 
impenitent  and  disobedient,  they  continually  add  to  the  amount  of 
their  criminality.  And  as  to  their  present  state,  they  evince  a 
strength  of  sinful  feeling  according  to  the  degree  of  light  which 
they  abuse,  and  the  urgency  of  motives  to  repentance  which  they 
resist.  The  more  conviction  of  conscience  they  have,  the  more 
guilty  they  are  in  disregarding  it.  Should  a  man  be  taken  to  the 
precincts  of  heaven,  and  there  be  permitted  to  behold  the  glory 
of  Christ  and  the  blessedness  of  the  saints  ;  and  should  he  then  be 
taken  to  the  borders  of  hell,  and  behold  the  hatefulness  and 
misery  of  sin  as  there  displayed  ;  and  if  after  all  this  he  should 
persist  in  his  wicked  ways  and  neglect  the  great  salvation,  his 
guilt  would  be  exceedingly  aggravated.  It  was  on  this  principle 
that  Jesus  represented  those  who  heard  his  instructions  and  wit- 
nessed his  works,  and  yet  continued  in  unbelief,  to  be  more  guilty 
than  Tyre  and  Sidon.  This  principle  applies  equally  to  the  case 
before  us.  That  serious  consideration,  that  excited  conscience, 
that  clear  view  of  the  importance  of  religion,  which  awakened 
sinners  often  have,  are  advantages  which  cannot  be  abused,  with- 
out extraordinary  guilt.  Indulging  enmity  to  God,  when  the 
excellence  of  his  character  is  better  understood  ;  loving  sin,  when 
its  mahgnity  and  danger  are  more  clearly  seen;  and  under- 
valuing the  salvation  of  the  soul,  when  the  worth  of  it  is  more 
deeply  felt  —  who  can  adequately  conceive  the  criminality  of  all 
this? 

But  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  there  is  a  great  diversity  in 
the  degree  of  moral  evil,  which  even  in  such  cases  exists  in  differ- 
ent individuals  —  a  diversity  which  no  one  can  comprehend, 
except  that  Being  who  searches  the  heart. 


WORK     OF    THE    SPIRIT.  25 

But  altliou";h  the  exercises  of  awakened  sinners  have  ftothing 
of  the  nature  of  hoHness,  and  make  no  approximation  to  it,  and 
are  of  no  moral  worth  in  themselves ;  yet  God  is  pleased,  in  the 
dispensation  of  his  grace,  to  overrule  them  for  good  ;  particularly 
to  make  them  the  means  of  giving  sinners  just  views  of  them- 
selves, and  to  prepare  them  to  see  and  feel  that  salvation  is  of 
God.  Sinners  under  conviction  generally  have,  for  a  time,  but  a 
slight  conception  of  the  depth  and  malignity  of  their  moral  disor- 
der ;  and  hence  they  imagine  that  they  can  obtain  a  cure  by  their 
own  endeavors.  But  their  endeavors,  being  prompted  by  a  regard 
to  their  own  selfish  interest,  prove  unavailing.  Thus  God  teaches 
them  a  new  lesson.  He  impresses  it  upon  their  hearts,  that  their 
spiritual  disease  has  a  power  and  obstinacy  which  no  human  means 
can  subdue  ;  that  they  are  the  slaves  of  sin,  and  will  continue  in 
that  wretched  bondage,  unless  they  are  delivered  by  an  act  of 
sovereign  mercy.  He  teaches  them  that  they  must  be  born  again. 
If,  after  they  are  thus  instructed,  they  repent,  and  obtain  salva- 
tion ;  they  will  know  who  gave  them  repentance,  and  to  whom 
they  are  indebted  for  salvation.  It  thus  appears,  that  the  earnest 
efforts  of  unregenerate  sinners,  though  wholly  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, are  made  the  means  of  bringing  them  to  that  state  of  con- 
scious, guilt  and  self-despair,  in  which  God  so  often  interposes  and 
shows  his  power  to  save.  But  let  it  never  be  forgotten,  that  this 
happy  result  is  owing,  not  to  any  thing  spiritually  good  in  the 
convictions  and  doings  of  the  unrenewed,  but  to  the  gracious 
agency  of  God.  And  it  must  be  considered  a  most  striking  in- 
stance of  his  power  and  his  grace,  that  he  thus  brings  good  out 
of  evil,  and,  by  means  of  those  exercises  of  sinners  which  proceed 
from  their  selfish  and  impenitent  hearts,  prepares  the  way  to  make 
known  to  them  the  glory  of  redeeming  mercy. 

VOL.  in.  -  3 


LECTURE    LXXXIX, 


WHAT     DIRECTIONS     SHALL     MINISTERS    GIVE    TO    THOSE    WHO    IN- 
QUIRE   WHAT    THEY    SHALL   DO    TO    BE    SAVED  ? 

I  SHALL  now  call  your  attention  to  a  subject,  which  is  of  great 
importance,  and  is  specially  interesting  to  the  ministers  of  Christ. 
What  directions  shall  we  give  to  sinners,  particularly  to  those  who 
are  awakened  to  serious  consideration,  and  are  disposed  to  inquire 
what  they  shall  do  to  he  saved? 

As  to  the  general  manner  in  which  we  are  to  address  the  unre- 
generate  ;  we  learn  from  the  example  of  the  prophets,  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles,  that  we  are  to  instruct  them  in  the  truths  of 
religion ;  that  we  are  to  warn  them  of  their  guilt  and  danger ; 
-that  we  are  to  hold  up  before  them  both  the  mercies  and  terrors 
of  the  Lord,  and  by  all  the  means  which  God  has  appointed,  to 
persuade  them  to  attend  to  the  things  which  belong  to  their 
peace. 

But  my  remarks  will  relate  particularly  to  the  case  of  those, 
who  are  disposed  to  inquire,  what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved. 

And  here  I  remark,  first,  that  God  has  not  left  us  to  frame  an 
answer  by  our  own  wisdom,  but  has  furnished  an  answer  for  us  in 
his  holy  word.  He  has  laid  down  a  rule  of  dvit}^  perfect  and  un- 
alterable. And  our  business,  as  ambassadors  of  Christ,  is,  to 
make  known  that  rule  to  our  fellow  men.  In  regard  to  every 
part  of  their  conduct,  we  must  give  them  the  directions  which  are 
contained  in  the  word  of  God.  The  sum  of  the  moral  law  is,  that 
we  should  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  our  neighbor  as  our- 


DIRECTIONS     TO     AWAKENED     SINNERS,  27 

selves.  These  two  comprehensive  precepts  are  to  be  earnestly 
inculcated  upon  all  human  bemgs  —  inculcated  without  any  abate- 
ment on  account  of  their  degeneracy.  The  same  as  to  the  gospel. 
The  message  of  mercy  which  it  contains,  and  its  directions  how  to 
obtain  the  blessings  proffered,  we  must  faithfully  proclaim  to  all 
men.  The  peculiar  commands  of  the  gospel  belong  appropriately 
to  men  as  sinners  ;  they  belong  to  them  because  they  are  sinners. 
Here  our  work  is  marked  out  for  us  with  great  plainness.  We 
are  to  address  the  gi-acious  offers  of  the  gospel  to  those  who  are 
living  in  sin,  and  to  persuade  them  to  repent  and  beheve  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  they  may  be  saved. 

Consider  now,  that  a  compliance  with  the  commands  of  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  is  an  exercise  of  holiness.  The  best  idea  we  can 
form  of  holiness  is  the  idea  of  that  supreme  love  to  God,  and  that 
impartial  love  to  our  neighbor,  which  the  law  requires.  And  obe- 
dience to  the  requisitions  of  the  gospel  is  as  truly  an  exercise  of 
holiness,  as  obedience  to  the  law.  To  repent  is  to  turn  from 
transgression  and  to  begin  to  obey  the  divine  law  ;  it  is  to  begin  to 
be  holy.  To  believe  in  Christ,  is  to  believe  in  a  holy  Saviour, 
implying  love  to  his  character,  and  subjection  to  his  authority. 
The  commands  of  the  law  and  of  the  gospel  are  all  perfectly  just 
and  reasonable.  And  what  can  be  more  suitable,  than  to  exhort 
and  urge  sinners  to  do  what  is  just  and  reasonable  ;  and  especially 
as  their  compliance  with  these  reasonable  commands  is  indispensa- 
ble to  their  salvation.  To  repent  and  believe  is  required  as  the 
condition,  on  our  part,  of  forgiveness  and  eternal  life.  If  the 
commands  of  God  are  just  and  good  —  if  he  deserves  our  love 
and  service  —  if  sin  is  hateful  and  destructive,  and  salvation  de- 
sirable and  precious  —  and  if  Christ  is  an  all-sufficient  Saviour 
and  worthy  of  our  confidence  ;  then  we  should  exhort  and  beseech 
sinners  to  repent  and  believe,  and  to  do  it  immediately.  To  say, 
that  this  is  not  their  duty  now,  is  to  say,  that  the  commands  of 
God  are  not  now  just  and  reasonable,  and  therefore  that  we  are 
not  to  enjoin  it  upon  sinners  as  a  present  duty  to  obey. 

This  introduces  my 

Second  remark,  namely,  that  when  treating  with  sinners  in  re- 


28  DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

gard  to  what  tJiey  must  do  to  he  saved,  we  should  take  care  not  to 
substitute  ant/  other  directions  in  the  place  of  those  lohich  God  has 
given  in  his  word.  Directions  are  sometimes  given  which  do  not 
require  and  are  not  intended  to  require  anj  thing  morally  right 
and  acceptable  to  God,  but  which  enjoin  something  else  in  the  place 
of  repentance,  something  intended  to  be  preparatory  to  it,  such  as 
attention  to  external  means,  and  those  serious  endeavors  and 
prayers  which  fall  short  of  the  beginning  of  holiness.  My  jx)si- 
tion  is,  that  when  sinners  inquire  what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved, 
or  when  we  direct  them  what  to  do  in  order  to  salvation,  we  must, 
take  care  not  to  substitute  any  directions  of  our  own  in  place  of 
those  which  God  has  given  in  his  word. 

One  reason  for  this  is,  that  such  directions  would  interfere  with 
the  commands  of  God.  These  commands  require  repentance, 
faith  and  love,  which  are  holy  exercises.  These  holy  exercises 
are  the  duty,  the  immediate  duty  of  all  sinners,  duly  instructed, 
and  ought  to  occupy  their  minds  at  the  present  time.  Now  if 
you  direct  them  to  other  exercises  different  from  these,  and  en- 
tirely wanting  in  holiness,  you  do  certainly  interfere  with  the  com- 
mands of  God.  It  is  impossible  for  those  whom  you  address,  to 
observe  your  directions,  which  require  what  is  not  holy,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  observe  the  divine  commands,  which  require  holiness. 
It  is  clear  then,  that  such  directions  as  you  give,  intei'fere  with 
the  authority  of  God.  For  no  one  can  follow  them  without  neg- 
lecting for  the  time  to  obey  God. 

Again.  These  inferior  directions  have  a  tendency  to  hinder  the 
conversion  of  sinners.  For  so  long  as  they  satisfy  themselves 
with  observing  such  directions,  they  keep  themselves  in  an  uncon- 
verted state  ;  for  the  directions  enjoin  nothing  but  unregenerate 
doings.  And  how  can  any  one  repent,  while  he  is  occupied  in 
doing  that  which  is  not  repentance  ?  How  can  he  believe,  while 
he  puts  forth  those  exercises  only,  which  are  destitute  of  faith  ? 
To  obtain  salvation,  the  sinner  must  go  beyond  these  defective  di- 
rections, must  rise  above  these  uni'egenerate  exercises,  and  attain 
to  those  which  constitute  a  compliance  with  the  requisitions  of  the 
gospel.     And  why  should  we  do  anything  to  hinder  or  delay  this  ? 


DIRECTIONS    TO    AAVAKENED     SINNERS.  29 

But  I  must  saj  further,  that  the  directions  under  consideration 
not  only  tend  to  hinder  or  delay  conversion,  but  may  entirely 
prevent  it.  An  unregenerate  man,  deeply  affected  with  the  sol- 
emn truths  which  you  delivered  to  him  on  the  Sabbath,  comes  to 
you  in  the  evening,  and  asks  you,  what  he  shall  do  to  be  saved. 
You  direct  him  to  exercises  which  fall  short  of  repentance  and 
faith  —  exercises  which  he  may  have  while  he  remains  an  enemy 
to  God.  He  complies  with  your  directions,  but  dies  before  the 
return  of  the  Lord's  day.  He  inquired  for  the  way  of  salvation  ; 
he  followed  your  directions,  but  failed  of  obtaining  salvation. 
You  may  say,  —  if  you  had  faithfully  exhorted  him  to  repent  and 
believe,  he  might  still  have  neglected  to  comply,  and  so  failed  of 
salvation.  True  ;  he  might  have  done  so.  But  that  would  have 
been  Ids  fault,  not  yours.  If  however  he  had  opened  his  heart  to 
instruction,  and  complied  with  the  Scriptural  directions  you  gave 
him,  he  would  have  been  saved.  This  is  suflficient  to  settle  the 
point  befoi-e  us.  Shall  we  give  directions  which,  if  followed,  will 
secure  salvation  ?  Or  shall  we  give  those  which,  so  long  as  they 
are  followed,  will  fail  of  securing  salvation  ?  Which  of  these  pro- 
ceedings is  most  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and  most  salutary 
in  its  tendency  ? 

In  regard  to  the  instructions  which  I  have  animadverted  upon, 
there  is  a  general  consideration  which  weighs  much  in  my  mind ; 
namely ;  that  all  the  good  ends  which  are  aimed  at  by  those  who 
give  them,  may  be  accomplished  more  certainly  and  fully  by  those 
directions,  which  are  strictly  conformed  to  Scripture. 

They  who  direct  the  sinner  to  exercises  which  fall  short  of  holi- 
ness, do  it  in  order  to  keep  up  and  increase  his  attention  to  the 
subject  of  religion  ;  to  rouse  him  to  more  serious  efforts  ;  to  lead 
him  on  to  better  views  of  divine  truth,  and  to  a  deeper  conviction 
that  he  is  depraved  and  lost ;  and  thus  to  prepare  him  to  receive 
salvation  as  an  unmerited  favor,  and  to  give  the  glory  of  it  to  God 
alone.  These  are  indeed  exceedingly  important  ends  ;  and  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  in  many  instances  they  are,  through  the 
mercy  of  God,  promoted  in  some  measure  by  means  of  the  direc- 
tions referred  to.     What  I  maintain  is,  that  they  may  be  promoted 

3* 


30  DIRECTIONS    TO     AWAKENED     SINNERS. 

more  certainly  and  in  a  higher  degree  by  those  directions,  which 
exactly  correspond  with  the  inspired  standard. 

The  directions  for  which  I  contend,  are  the  unalterable  requisi- 
tions of  the  law  and  the  gospel  —  requisitions  which  are  perfectly 
reasonable,  just  and  good,  and  which  exhibit  the  true  standard  of 
hiiman  duty.  Now  if  the  mind  of  the  sinner  is  duly  fixed  upon 
this  divine  standard,  he  must  attain  to  a  clearer  view  of  his  obli- 
gations and  the  guilt  of  disobedience,  than  if  he  were  led  to  con- 
template a  lower  standard,  —  a  standard  to  which  he  might 
conform  without  holiness.  If  you  would  produce  in  the  sinner  a- 
deep  conviction  of  the  desperate  wickedness  of  his  heart,  of  the 
evil  of  impenitence  and  unbelief,  and  the  inexcusable  criminality 
of  remaining  in  a  state  of  enmity  against  God,  you  must  lead  him 
to  dwell,  in  serious  contemplation,  upon  the  holy  requirements  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  must  urge  upon  his  conscience  his  perfect 
obligation  to  an  immediate  compliance.  He  will  naturally  measure 
his  obligations,  and,  of  course,  his  guilt,  by  the  requisitions  incul- 
ca.ted  upon  him  by  those  who  speak  to  him  in  the  name  of  God. 
If  those  requisitions  are  different  from  the  requisitions  of  God's 
word  —  if  you  direct  him  to  those  doings  Avhich  fall  short  of  holi- 
ness, and  if  he  receives  your  directions  as  of  divine  authority, 
and  judges  himself  by  them,  the  natural  consequence  will  be,  that 
he  will  consider  himself  excusable  for  the  want  of  holiness.  If  he 
does  in  any  considerable  degree,  follow  your  directions,  he  Avill 
satisfy  himself  that  he  has  done  his  duty  ;  and  though  still  impen- 
itent and  unsanctified,  will  think  favorably  of  his  state.  Where- 
as, if  he  were  led  to  measure  his  obligation  and  his  guilt  by  the 
right  standard,  he  would  be  compelled  to  give  up  his  favorable 
opinion  of  himself  and  adopt  a  very  humiliating  view  of  his  own 
heart  and  life. 

It  is  moreover  obvious,  that  the  sinner  who  fixes  his  eye  upon 
the  high  and  perfect  standard  of  duty  which  the  Scriptures  pre- 
sent before  him,  and  who  thus  attains  to  a  deep  conviction  of  his 
depravity,  guilt  and  danger,  will  ordinarily  be  excited  to  more 
strenuous  efforts,  than  one  whose  conviction  is  less  deep  and 
thorough.     The  method  then  which  I  recommend  has,  even  in  this 


DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS.  31 

respect,  an  advantage  above  the  other.  With  a  moderate  and  defect- 
ive conviction,  a  sinner  may  be  roused  to  some  serious  endeavors  to 
better  his  condition.  But  his  endeavors  will  be  more  earnest  and 
intense  in  proportion  as  he  has  a  clearer  apprehension  of  his  guilt 
and  wretchedness.  "When  a  sinner  turns  his  thoughts  undivid- 
edlj  upon  the  demands  of  the  law  and  the  gospel,  and  upon  the 
justice  of  those  demands,  when  he  has  a  decided  impression  that 
he  is  really  bound  in  duty  to  repent  and  turn  from  sin,  and  that 
immediately  ;  to  believe  in  Christ  and  become  holy  without  delay 
—  with  this  impression,  he  will  be  waked  up  to  the  most  vigorous 
efforts  to  obtain  deliverance'  from  the  bondage  of  sin.  How  infe- 
rior in  point  of  seriousness  and  intensity  must  be  the  efforts  of 
one,  whose  mind  is  turned  off  from  the  high  claims  of  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  and  who  contents  himself  with  those  directions 
which  require  nothing  above  the  reach  of  unregeneracy  !  Those 
evangelical  ministers  and  writers,  who  give  the  defective  direc- 
tions against  which  I  object,  regard  the  efforts  which  they  may 
induce  the  sinner  to  make,  as  preparatory  to  that  more  thorough 
conviction  of  guilt  and  ruin,  which  is  generally  followed  by  the 
special  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  the  sinner  to  faith 
in  Christ  and  the  commencement  of  a  new  life.  The  importance 
of  such  conviction  must  not  be  overlooked.  And  it  is  a  well 
known  fact,  that  God  generally  accomplishes  it  previously  to  the 
manifestation  of  his  mercy  in  the  renewal  of  the  heart ;  and  that 
he  thus  effectually  teaches  his  people  from  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  life,  that  salvation  is  wholly  of  God.  And  what  I 
maintain  is,  that  those  instructions  and  directions  which  explain 
and  inculcate  the  holy  requisitions  of  the  law  and  the  gospel  are, 
under  God,  far  better  suited  to  accomplish  this  preparatory  work 
of  growing  seriousness  and  finally  of  thorough  conviction,  than 
those  directions  which  take  lower  ground.  The  preparatory  work 
intended  implies  that  the  high  and  holy  requirements  of  the  law 
and  gospel  are  seen  and  felt  to  be  perfectly  just  and  right,  and 
that  they  ought  to  be  instantly  complied  with.  And  there  are  no 
means  by  which  we  can  so  reasonably  hope  to  bring  sinners  to 
see  and  feel  this,  as  by  clearly  explaining  to  them  and  laboring  to 


32  DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

impress  on  their  consciences  and  hearts,  the  very  demands  which 
a  holy  and  merciful  God  makes  ujwn  them.  Suppose  again,  that 
you  direct  them  to  other  duties,  so  called  —  duties  which  imply 
no  repentance,  no  faith,  no  love.  And  suppose  they  do  those 
duties,  as  you  direct.  What  then  ?  Why,  the  very  fact  that 
they  have  faithfully  followed  your  directions,  will  tend  to  beget 
within  them  self-complacent  thoughts,  and  a  hope  of  obtaining 
salvation  by  their  own  unsanctified  doings,  and  thus  to  keep  them 
from  being  thoroughly  convinced  that  they  have  destroyed  them- 
selves, and  that  salvation  is  of  God.  And  to  make  the  best  of 
it,  if  the  thing  stops  here,  certain  ruin  will  be  the  consequence. 
If  you  would  do  any  thing  to  purpose  with  sinners  in  the  state 
above  mentioned,  you  must  go  over  the  whole  ground  again,  and 
give  them  instruction  according  to  the  inspired  standard.  You  must 
plainly  inform  them,  that  all  their  feehngs  and  endeavors,  while 
impenitent,  will  avail  nothing.  You  must  show  them,  that  a  holy 
God  requires  repentance,  faith,  and  love,  and  must  enforce  these 
reasonable  duties  upon  them  by  the  most  weighty  sanctions. 
That  is,  you  must  do  in  the  end  what  should  have  been  done  be- 
fore ;  and  you  must  do  it  under  the  disadvantage  of  having  much 
to  undo  which  has  resulted  from  your  previous  directions  ;  under 
the  disadvantage  too  of  an  apparent  inconsistency.  For  when 
you  come  to  pursue  the  course  last  mentioned,  will  not  the  sinner 
who  has  been  following  your  previous  directions,  be  very  apt  to 
think  that  he  has  been  imposed  upon  by  unauthorized  representa- 
tions, and  to  ask  why  you  did  not  tell  him  before  that  God  really 
required  of  him  immediate  repentance  and  faith,  and  that  these 
requisitions  were  entirely  just,  and  that  nothing  short  of  a  cordial 
compliance  could  be  acceptable  to  God,  or  entitle  him  to  salvation  ? 
May  he  not  say,  that,  while  he  was  conforming  to  your  instruc- 
tions, he  verily  thought  he  was  doing  what  was  right ;  that  he 
could  not  suppose  that  a  minister  of  the  gospel  would  direct  him 
to  any  thing  which  would  not  be  acceptable  to  God,  particularly 
on  a  subject  so  momentous  as  the  salvation  of  the  soul ;  but  that 
he  now  finds  that  he  has  been  mistaken  —  that  all  he  has  done  is 
nothing,  and  that  his  immediate  and  imperative  duty  is  to  repent 


DIRECTION'S    TO    AWAKENED    SINNEKS.  33 

and  believe  in  Christ  ?  He  asks,  whj  he  was  not  informed  of  all 
this  before  ;  or,  if  it  was  in  any  manner  signified  to  him,  why  his 
mind  was  diverted  from  it  by  directions  of  so  different  a  character. 
Here  is  the  difficulty.  Such  a  double  course  creates  confusion. 
It  divides  the  attention  of  the  sinner  ;  misguides  his  conscience ; 
blunts  the  edge  of  divine  truth ;  excites  delusive  expectations, 
and  prevents  that  full  conviction  of  the  righteous  claims  of  God, 
which  prepares  the  way  for  cordial  faith  and  obedience. 

It  has,  I  trust,  been  made  sufficiently  evident,  that  all  the  de- 
sirable ends  aimed  at  by  those  who  give  a  sinner  the  lower  class 
of  directions  under  consideration,  may  be  accomplished  more  cer- 
tainly and  in  a  higher  degree  by  simply  explaining  and  earnestly 
inculcating  the  just  and  holy  requisitions  of  God's  word.  So  that 
a  careful  observance  of  the  principle  which  I  have  advocated,  in- 
stead of  occasioning  any  loss  of  what  is  desirable,  will  be  attended 
with  gain. 

The  mode  of  addressing  sinners  which  I  have  recommended  is 
exceedingly  ^:)?awi  and  simple,  and  yet  has  the  advantage  of  great 
variety  ;  and  on  all  these  accounts  it  is  adapted  to  the  different 
characters  and  circumstances  of  those  whom  we  are  called  to 
instruct. 

The  divine  requisitions  are  plain  ;  and  those  to  whom  they  are 
addressed,  cannot  fail  to  understand  them,  except  through  their 
own  fault.  They  are  also  simple.  Though  many  in  number,  they 
all  enjoin  upon  us  substantially  the  same  thing,  that  is,  holiness. 
But  the  directions  of  Scripture  have  a  remarkable  variety  —  a 
variety  which  is  suited  to  all  the  characters  and  circumstances  of 
men,  and  Avhich  gives  room  for  all  possible  forms  of  awakening, 
impressive  and  melting  address  from  the  ministers  of  Christ. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  as  some  appear  to  have 
done,  that  what  I  have  called  the  simple  directions  of  Scripture, 
begin  and  end  with  the  repetition  of  the  words,  submit,  repent, 
believe.  The  Lord  Jesus,  and  the  apostles  and  prophets  address 
themselves  to  sinners  in  an  almost  endless  variety  of  forms ; 
sometimes  in  tlie  way  of  direct  requisition,  sometimes  in 
the  way   of  expostulation,   persuasion,   and  intreaty ;    and    un- 


84  DIRECTIONS     TO     AWAKENED     SINNERS. 

der  each  of  these  heads  there  is  a  striking  variety.  This  is 
specially  true  with  the  Scripture  directions  as  to  duty.  The  most 
general  and  comprehensive  of  these  is  the  call  to  repent  and 
believe.  But  the  Scriptures  are  not  restricted  to  these  forms. 
They  require  sinners  to  consider  their  ways,  to  receive  instruction, 
to  turn  from  their  evil  courses,  to  abandon  their  sins,  to  cease  to  do 
evil  and  learn  to  do  well,  to  cleanse  their  hands  and  purify  their 
hearts,  to  pray,  to  call  upon  God,  to  seek  the  Lord,  to  look  unto 
Jesus,  etc.  Let  any  one  examine  the  first  and  the  fifty-fifth 
chapters  of  Isaiah,  and  other  similar  portions  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  see  what  various  commands,  exhortations,  warnings  and  in- 
treaties  they  exhibit,  and  what  a  storehouse  they  contain  for  the 
use  of  religious  teachers. 

But  it  is  still  true,  that  when  the  sacred  writers  give  us  an 
account  of  the  instructions  and  directions  which  were  addressed 
to  sinners,  they  do  it  in  a  very  summary  way.  How  brief,  for 
example,  is  their  description  of  the  preaching  of  John  Bap- 
tist, and  of  Jesus  !  "  They  preached,  saying,  repent,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  Again,  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  that 
"  he  preached,  saying,  the  time  is  fulfilled  and  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand  :  repent  ye,  and  beheve  the  gospel."  During 
Christ's  ministry,  he  sent  out  the  twelve  apostles ;  and  it  is 
merely  said,  "  they  preached  that  men  should  repent."  Jesus 
represents  it  as  the  object  of  his  advent,  "  to  call  sinners  to 
repentance."  And  Paul  describes  his  preaching  at  Ephesus 
merely  by  saying,  that  he  "  testified  both  to  Jews  and  Greeks 
repentance  towards  God  and  faith  towards  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
And  when  sinners  inquired  what  they  should  do  to  be  saved,  the 
apostles  directed  them  to  beheve  in  Christ.  But  the  preaching 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles  was  not  made  up  of  these  brief  expres- 
sions merely,  but  extended  to  all  the  counsel  of  God,  to  all  the 
doctrines  and  duties  of  religion.  They  preached  repentance. 
But  in  preaching  repentance,  they  doubtless  explained  the  na- 
ture and  necessity  of  repentance,  and  urged  the  various  consid- 
erations which  were  suited  to  influence  sinners  to  repent.  And 
•when  they  directed  men  to  believe  the  gospel,  they   set   forth 


DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS.  35 

the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Thej  showed  that  man  is  a  sinner, 
and  Christ  the  only  Saviour,  and  that  a  cleaving  to  him  in  faith 
and  obedience  is  the  only  way  to  obtain  forgiveness  and  eternal 
life.  The  same  is  true  in  other  cases.  There  is  then  a  wide  field 
open  before  us  ;  a  rich  variety  of  truths  which  we  are  to  teach. 
But  whatever  we  do  in  the  various  branches  of  instruction,  it 
must  be  our  constant  endeavor  to  bring  men  to  comply  with  the 
requisitions  of  the  gospel.  If  men  are  ignorant,  we  must  labor 
to  make  them  acquainted  with  the  truth  —  must  teach  them  the 
character  and  law  of  God,  and  their  own  depravity  and  guilt. 
We  must  teach  them  the  necessity  of  being  born  of  the  Spirit. 
We  must  preach  Christ  to  them,  and  set  him  forth  in  all  his  per- 
fections, offices  and  blessings.  We  must  announce  to  them,  in 
God's  name,  the  commands  of  the  gospel  and  exhort  them  to  a 
cordial  obedience,  as  the  only  thing  which  can  be  acceptable  to 
God  and  secure  their  salvation.  We  must  press  immediate  obedi- 
ence to  the  calls  of  the  gospel,  as  altogether  reasonable,  as  the 
work  which  they  are  sacredly  bound  to  do  without  delay,  and  which 
they  cannot  neglect  a  single  moment,  without  augmenting  their 
guilt.  We  must  show  them  that  they  have  no  excuse  for  the 
least  postponement ;  that  reason,  and  conscience,  the  authority  of 
God  and  their  own  eternal  welfare  require  them  to  submit  to 
Christ  and  receive  his  gracious  offers  now.  We  must  show  them, 
that  delaying  repentance,  or  substituting  any  thing  else  in  its 
place,  is  rebellion ;  that  God  deserves  their  supreme  love,  and 
deserves  it  now ;  that  sin  deserves  their  unmingled  abhorrence, 
and  deserves  it  now  ;  that  Christ  is  an  all-sufficient  and  glorious 
Saviour,  and  is  worthy  of  their  cordial  trust  and  obedience,  and 
is  worthy  of  it  now.  And  whether  we  exhort  them  to  repent,  to 
believe,  or  to  pray  —  to  read  or  to  hear,  or  to  do  anything  else 
which  God  requires,  we  must  exhort  them  to  do  it  as  God  requires 
—  to  do  it  from  the  heart,  and  with  a  real  desire  for  spiritual 
blessings. 

Let  me  add,  that  the  mode  of  addressing  sinners  which  I  have 
thus  freely  recommended,  has  the  advantage  of  being  more  direct- 
ly and  entirely  approved  by  conscience,  than  any  other.     There 


36  DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

is  nothing  which  rational  beings  look  upon  with  so  ready  and 
decided  an  approbation,  and  feel  to  be  so  obligatory  upon  them, 
as  supreme  love  to  one  who  is  supremely  excellent  and  amiable, 
confidence  in  one  who  is  infinitely  powerful  and  good,  and  obedience 
to  one  who  has  a  rightful  authority  over  them.  If  you  urge  these 
high  and  sacred  duties,  you  have  conscience  on  your  side.  And 
you  have  a  stronger  decision  of  conscience  in  favor  of  what  you 
teach,  than  if  you  take  lower  ground,  and  inculcate  inferior  duties. 
Suppose,  for  example,  you  merely  tell  sinners,  it  is  their  duty  to  at- 
tend public  worship,  and  hsten  to  the  instructions  of  the  Sanctuary. 
It  is  very  possible  they  may  doubt  this,  as  it  is  an  external  service, 
and  becomes  a  duty  only  in  subserviency  to  a  higher  object.-  To 
convince  them  of  their  obligation  to  attend  public  worship,  you 
may  find  it  necessary  to  bring  forward  principles  of  superior  clear- 
ness and  force,  such  as  the  reverence  they  should  feel  for  the 
authority  of  God,  and  the  ready  submission  they  owe  to  whatever 
he  commands  or  appoints  ;  the  worth  of  salvation,  and  the  connec- 
tion it  has  with  the  instructions  and  prayers  of  the  Sanctuary,  and 
other  principles  of  like  kind.  In  order  to  persuade  them  of  their 
obligation  to  observe  the  institution  and  perform  the  outward  ser- 
vice above  mentioned,  you  must  impress  upon  them  these  more 
simple  and  original  principles  and  these  more  obvious  and  certain 
obligations.  The  former  obligation,  when  admitted  by  them,  is  a 
secondary  obhgation,  and  has  far  less  power  over  the  moral  facul- 
ties, than  a  primary  obligation.  However  they  may  dispose  of  the 
former,  they  cannot  evade  the  latter.  Ask  them,  is  it  not  your 
duty  to  love  and  adore  the  God  who  made  you  and  who  possesses 
all  possible  perfection  ?  Is  it  not  your  duty  to  be  grateful  for  his 
constant  kindness  ?  Is  it  not  right  for  you  to  take  care  of  your 
own  immortal  soul,  and  to  commit  it  to  him  who  is  able  to  save  ? 
Ought  you  not  to  repent  of  sin,  and  to  obey  the  commands  of  a 
wise  and  benevolent  Sovereign  ?  Every  one  who  is  honest,  will 
answer,  yes.  It  is  an  obligation  which  cannot  be  evaded  —  an 
obligation  which  is  obvious,  and  sacred,  and  immutable.  Keep 
the  sinner's  attention  undividedly  to  this,  and  his  conscience  will 
speak  to  him  so  plainly  and  so  loudly  that  he  must  hear ;  and  if 


DIRECTIONS    TO     AWAKENED     SINNERS.  37 

he  refuses  to  submit,  it  will  utter  a  sentence  of  condemnation 
•which  will  fill  his  guilty  soul  with  terror. 

But  here  a  question  may  arise  in  your  minds  :  —  Do  not  the 
Scriptures  furnish  examples  of  that  mode  of  addressing  sinners 
■which  has  here  been  represented  as  unscriptural  ?  Are  they  not 
called  upon  to  seek  after  God,  to  strive,  to  ask,  to  pray,  etc.  ? 
I  answer,  yes.  But  it  is  evident  that  these  are  only  so  many 
"ways  of  setting  forth  the  proper  exercises  of  the  penitent  and  con- 
trite. When  God  in  his  word  requires  these  exercises,  he  most 
certainly  requires  that  they  should  be  performed  in  some  specific 
manner  —  either  with  a  penitent  heart,  or  an  impenitent  —  either 
with  love  to  holiness,  or  with  love  to  sin.  If  we  say  that  in  the 
texts  referred  to,  God  requires  exercises  which  are  without  any 
degree  of  holiness,  and  which  proceed  from  an  impenitent,  unre- 
newed heart ;  then  we  have  the  strange  fact  to  dispose  of,  that 
sinners  may  render  an  acceptable  service  to  God  without  any 
degree  of  holiness ;  —  for  doubtless  God  will  accept  just  such 
service  as  he  requires ;  and  so  unconverted  men,  retaining  their 
unbelieving,  impenitent  heart,  may  perform  a  service  which  God 
requires  and  will  accept.  IIow  then  is  it  true,  that  without  faith 
it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  and  that  all  unbelievers  are  under 
condemnation  ? 

Do  you  say,  that  God  requires  these  things  of  sinners  without 
determining  how  they  are  to  be  done  ?  But  if  God  has  not  de- 
termined this,  who  shall  determine  it  ?  And  how  can  it  be  known, 
"whether  sinners  truly  obey,  or  not  ?  And  it  will  be  natural  to 
ask,  w4iy  God  has  not  determined  in  what  manner  the  things 
required  of  sinners  shall  be  performed,  that  is,  with  what  feelings 
of  heart  he  would  have  sinners  seek,  and  strive,  and  pray.  Is  it 
a  matter  of  indifference  with  him  who  looketh  on  the  heart,  wheth- 
er sinners  strive  and  pray  with  right  feelings  of  heart,  or  not  ? 
And  if  it  is  a  matter  of  indifierence  with  God,  whether  men  strive 
and  pray  with  right  feelings,  or  not — from  love  to  him,  or  from 
an  opposite  motive  ;  then  what  becomes  of  the  first  and  great 
command,  which  requires  all  men  to  love  God  supremely  ?  Is  it 
disannulled  ?     And  if  it  is  disannulled  —  if  sinners  are  released 

VOL.  in.  4 


38  DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

from  all  obligation  to  obey  it ;  I  ask  ivhy  tbej  are  released  ?  Is 
it  because  tbej  are  sinners,  and  are  not  disposed  to  obey  ?  And 
are  ibey,  for  tbe  same  reason,  released  from  their  obligation  to 
obey  all  tbe  other  divine  commands  ?  The  general  current  of 
Scripture  precepts,  and  the  holy  character  of  God,  make  it 
evident,  that  when  he  requires  sinners  to  seek,  to  strive,  to  pray, 
he  requires  them  to  do  it  with  sincerity  of  heart,  with  faith  in 
Christ,  and  with  a  real  love  to  the  salvation  which  they  seek,  and 
that  he  cannot  accept  them  on  any  other  terms.  Seeking  after 
God  is  a  Scripture  phrase,  which  denotes  a  cordial  desire  after 
God  as  the  chief  good,  and  a  serious  use  of  the  means  which  he 
has  appointed  for  obtaining  his  favor.  The  phrase  is  often  em- 
ployed to  designate  the  great  business  of  good  men  through  life. 
Their  piety  is  a  constant  seeking  after  God.  And  when  sinners 
are  required  to  seek  after  God,  they  are  required  to  commence  a 
life  of  piety.  And  the  promise  is,  that  they  shall  find  him,  if 
they  seek  him  with  the  whole  heart. 

The  same  as  to  striving.  Jesus  said,  "  Strive  to  enter  in  at 
the  strait  gate."  He  meant  to  direct  to  efforts  which  would  be 
successful,  as  appears  from  what  he  immediately  adds  ;  "  for  many 
I  say  unto  you  shall  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able."  He 
thus  showed  that  everything  depended  on  the  kind  of  efforts 
which  he  enjoined,  as  other  efforts  would  fail  of  success.  "  If  a 
man  strive  for  masteries,"  says  an  Apostle,  "  yet  is  he  not  crown- 
ed, except  he  strive  lawfully."  And  he  speaks  of  Christians  as 
"  striving  in  their  prayers."  And  in  reference  to  the  work  of  his 
apostleship,  he  speaks  of  himself "  as  striving  according  to  the 
divine  power  which  worked  in  him  mightily.  '  Striving  in  Scrip- 
ture use  denotes  great  earnestness  —  intense  effort  in  the  work  of 
religion. 

The  passage  in  which  Christ  required  men  to  ask,  that  they 
might  receive,  and  to  knock  that  it  might  be  opened  unto  them, 
must  be  understood  in  the  same  sense.  They  are  required  to 
ask  for  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  with  importunity,  and  from  a 
sincere  desire  to  obtain  that  unspeakable  good.  To  whom,  but  to 
those  who  ask  with  a  penitent,  believing  heart,  has  God  promised 
to  give  that  precious  blessing  ? 


DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS.  39 

As  to  prayer,  God  does  indeed  require  it  of  all  men.  But 
what  is  the  prayer  which  he  requires  ?  It  is  prayer  offered  up 
in  faith.  "  He  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  the  rewarder  of  them  who  diUgently  seek  him."  It 
must  be  offered  up  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  with  a  hearty 
rehance  upon  him  as  a  Saviour.  It  must  be  attended  with  repen- 
tance and  confession,  and  with  a  disposition  to  do  the  will  of 
God.  Such,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  must  be  the  prayer 
which  will  be  acceptable  to  God,  and  will  secure  a  gracious 
answer.  If  any  one  who  prays  is  destitute  of  faith  ;  if  he  is  not 
penitent  and  contrite  ;  if  he  has  not,  in  some  measure,  a  heart  to 
do  the  will  of  God  ;  his  prayer  is  an  abomination.  While,  then, 
we  earnestly  exhort  sinners  to  pray,  we  must  not  leave  them  to 
think,  that  the  prayer  of  those  who  have  no  repentance  or  faith 
and  who  regard  iniquity  in  their  heart,  will  secure  the  blessings 
of  salvation.  We  must  faithfully  teach  them,  that  it  is  a  most 
reasonable  and  indispensable  duty  to  pray,  and  to  pray  as  God 
requires. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  word  of  God  will  convince  you, 
that  his  commands  are  all  harmonious,  and  that  there  is  no  one  of 
them  which,  taken  according  to  its  true  intent,  does  not  require  a 
penitent,  obedient  heart.  If  we  should  take  different  ground, 
and  represent  that  any  feelings,  desires,  endeavors,  or  prayers 
will  be  acceptable  to  God  and  secure  spiritual  blessings,  without 
repentance,  faith,  or  love ;  we  should  do  what  would  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  holiness  of  God,  and  with  the  just  and  immutable 
teachings  of  his  word. 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  the  treatment  of  this  subject, 
because  I  deem  it  of  great  importance,  both  as  it  relates  to  the 
honor  of  God  and  the  spiritual  interests  of  men.  In  itself,  it 
would  seem  to  be  encumbered  with  no  special  difficulty.  The 
practice  of  inspired  men,  in  directing  sinners  how  to  obtain  salva- 
tion, is  perfectly  plain  and  satisfactory.  But  it  has  been  involved 
in  obscurity  by  the  subtle  objections  of  an  unhumbled,  self-justi- 
fying heart,  and  I  must  say  too,  by  the  manner  in  which  it  has 
been  treated  by  some  gospel  ministers,  who  have  appeared  to 


40  DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

think  that  the  high  commands  of  God  must,  in  some  -way,  be  so 
modified,  that  sinners  may  perform  an  acceptable  service,  for  a 
time  at  least,  without  either  repentance  or  faith.  Against  this 
mistake  we  ought  to  guard,  both  in  the  matter  and  manner  of  our 
instructions,  and  scrupulously  to  follow  our  infallible  guide.  We 
must  never  forget,  that  God  himself  has  informed  us  what  he 
requires  of  sinners  as  necessary  to  salvation,  and  what  directions 
we  are  to  give  them.  The  duty  assigned  to  us  is  to  declare  and 
Explain  his  requirements,  and,  by  proper  motives,  to  enforce 
them ;  to  persuade  sinners  to  do  just  what  God  commands,  and 
what  a  faithful  conscience  and  a  just  regard  to  their  own  eternal 
interest  require  —  always  taking  part  with  God,  vindicating  the 
righteousness  and  goodness  of  all  his  requirements,  and  exposing 
the  wickedness  and  inexcusableness  of  sinners  in  refusing  a  cordial 
obedience. 

But  you  may  ask,  why  the  manner  of  addressing  sinners  which 
I  have  represented  as  unscriptural,  has  not  been  more  notoriously 
hurtful  in  its  effects  ;  especially  why  some  of  those  ministers,  who 
have  adopted  it,  have  preached  with  so  much  success. 

I  o;rant  that  some  of  the  most  faithful  and  successful  ministers 
have  done,  in  part,  what  I  regard  as  unscriptural ;  I  say,  in  part. 
They  have  prescribed  to  sinners,  as  duties,  a  class  of  exercises 
which  imply  neither  repentance  nor  faith,  and  have  made  much 
of  these  duties,  as  preparatory  to  a  saving  conversion.  Now  if 
they  had  contented  themselves  with  inculcating  these  unregene- 
rate  doings,  and  had  neglected  to  enforce  the  high  demands  of 
God  in  the  law  and  in  the  gospel,  the  results  must  have  been 
deplorable  indeed.  But  this  has  not  been  the  case.  For  though 
they  have  directed  sinners  to  do  a  variety  of  things,  which  imply 
no  repentance  or  faith,  they  have  not  stopped  here,  but  have 
inculcated  the  highest  claims  of  the  law  and  the  gospel  as  per- 
fectly righteous  and  perfectly  obligatory,  and  have  exhorted  and 
entreated  sinners  to  comply  with  them,  and  to  comply  with  them 
immediately,  that  is,  at  the  very  time,  when,  according  to  the 
lower  set  of  directions,  the  persons  addressed  were  to  be  em- 
ployed in  exercises  of  a  very  different  kind.     The  two  modes  of 


DIRECTIONS    TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS.  41 

address  are  plainly  inconsistent  with  each  other,  as  it  is  impossible 
for  any  person  to  comply  truly  with  one  of  these  classes  of  direc- 
tions, without  for  the  time  neglecting  the  other.  But  notwith- 
standing this  inconsistency,  which  is  generally  passed  by  without 
being  much  thought  of,  the  instructions  of  such  ministers,  taken 
together,  have  been  productive  of  very  salutary  eflfects.  The  ten- 
dency of  what  is  imscriptural  has  been  counteracted  or  neutralized 
by  the  greater  proportion  of  what  is  Scriptural  The  high  claims 
of  the  law  and  the  gospel  which  are  held  forth,  may  have  a  para- 
mount influence  over  the  minds  of  sinners,  and  may  raise  them 
above  the  danger  to  which  they  would  otherwise  be  exposed  by 
the  lower  directions  given.  It  is  the  amount  of  truth  which  pro- 
duces the  result.  The  inconsiderable  portion  of  error  which  is 
intermingled,  though  in  itself  of  bad  tendency,  does  not  prevent, 
though  it  may  diminish,  the  good  effect  of  the  great  body  of 
truth.  Were  it  not  for  this  happy  circumstance  —  which  we  owe 
to  the  forbearance  and  mercy  of  God  —  no  human  instructions 
would  be  safe,  because  no  human  instructions  can  be  supposed  to 
contain  pure  truth,  free  from  all  mixture  of  error. 

In  the  way  of  objection  against  what  I  have  advanced,  it  may 
be  said,  that  sinners,  in  their  depraved  and  unrcgenerate  state, 
are  incapable  of  complying  with  the  higher  class  of  directions 
above  mentioned,  and  that  it  would  seem  expedient  to  prescribe 
such  exercises  as  are  within  the  reach  of  the  unrcgenerate  mind. 
In  reply  to  this,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  repeat  what  has  been 
suggested  in  previous  Lectures,  that  the  depravity  of  men  is  not 
such  as  to  interfere  with  their  obligation  to  obey  the  divine  com- 
mands ;  and  to  refer  to  the  example  of  inspired  teachers,  who 
uniformly  addressed  to  sinners,  however  depraved,  the  unqualified 
demands  of  the  law  and  the  gospel,  and,  in  the  name  of  God, 
required  of  them  an  immediate  compliance.  It  is  the  duty  of  all 
the  ministers  of  Christ  to  follow  in  the  steps  of  those  who  were 
divinely  commissioned  to  declare  the  counsel  of  God. 

I  shall  notice  one  more  argument  which  has  been  used  in  favor  of 
the  lower  class  of  directions  to  sinners,  namely,  that  God  actually 
uses  unrcgenerate  doings,  as  a  means  of  preparing  sinners  to  receive 

4* 


42  DIRECTIONS    TO     AWAKENED    SINNERS. 

the  grace  of  the  gospel ;  and  that  it  is  therefore  proper  for  us  to 
direct  them  to  just  such  doings  —  thus  falling  in  with  the  methods 
of  divine  providence. 

I  admit  the  fact  stated,  hut  not  the  inference.  The  methods  of 
God's  sovereign  providence  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  rule  of  our 
duty.  In  some  instances,  within  my  knowledge,  God  has  made  use 
of  the  excess  of  profaneness  and  wickedness  in  sinners,  as  a  means  of 
awakening  their  consciences  and  bringing  them  to  repentance.  And 
we  know  that  in  one  way  or  another  he  will  overrule  all  the  wick- 
edness of  man  for  the  accomplishment  of  good  ends.  But  who, 
except  the  impious  scoffer,  will  infer  from  this,  that  wickedness 
ought  to  be  either  committed,  or  prescribed  as  a  duty  ?  The 
backslidings  of  Christians  are,  in  the  economy  of  grace,  made  the 
means  of  humbling  them,  and  exciting  their  gratitude  to  God  for 
his  forbearance  and  mercy.  But  who  ever,  on  this  account, 
thinks  proper  to  direct  Christians  to  backslide  ?  God,  as  Sove- 
reign of  the  world,  has  his  province  and  his  prerogative.  And 
his  province  and  prerogative  is  to  direct  and  control  all  creatures 
and  events  according  to  his  own  wise  and  holy  will.  Man  has  Ms 
province  —  a  province  assigned  to  him  by  the  wisdom  of  his  Cre- 
ator. It  is  the  province  of  a  subject ;  and  his  duties  are  marked 
out  for  him  in  the  precepts  of  the  law  and  the  gospel.  As 
ambassadors  of  Christ,  we  have  our  province  —  our  appropriate 
work.  We  are  not  to  make  a  law  for  apostate  man,  but  to  pro- 
claim the  law  which  God  has  made  —  to  require  of  the  sinner 
just  what  God  requires  ;  to  forbid  what  God  forbids  ;  to  encou- 
rage him  by  promises  and  to  alarm  by  threats,  just  as  God  autho- 
rizes us  —  never  going  out  of  our  province  —  never  undertaking 
to  control  events,  or  to  remodel  the  divine  commands  —  never 
meddling  with  anything  but  our  own  appropriate  work.  How 
desirable  and  excellent  this  order  of  things !  God  acting  as  God, 
and  doing  his  own  holy  and  benevolent  work ;  man  acting  in  his 
place  as  a  subject,  and  conforming  to  the  will  of  his  righteous 
Sovereign ;  and  ministers  acting  in  their  appropriate  office,  as  ser- 
vants and  messengers  of  Christ,  and  proclaiming,  unaltered,  his 
invitations,  commands,  and  promises. 


DIRECTIONS     TO    AWAKENED    SINNERS.  43 

One  thing  more.  The  mode  of  ministerial  address  which  I 
have  endeavored  to  defend,  has  the  recommendation  of  being  in 
agreement  with  the  special  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  is  the 
aim  of  the  Spirit,  when  he  comes  with  saving  mercy  to  the  souls 
of  sinners  ?  What  does  he  do  ?  He  convinces  them  of  sin,  and 
urges  them  to  forsake  it.  He  directs  their  thoughts  to  the  Sar 
viour,  and  impresses  them  with  the  duty  of  faith  in  him  and  sub- 
mission to  his  authority.  He  reveals  to  them  the  glory  of  God, 
and  shows  them  their  obligation  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart. 
He  gives  countenance  to  nothing  but  holiness.  And  when  hia 
influence  is  eflectual  in  sinners,  they  repent,  they  believe,  they 
love  and  obey,  just  as  the  word  of  God  requires  them  to  do. 
And  whatever  they  may  do  with  an  impenitent,  unbeUeving  heart, 
the  Spirit  teaches  them  that  it  is  of  no  avail  —  that  God  cannot 
look  upon  it  with  approbation,  and  that  they  ought,  without  delay, 
to  comply  with  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  gospel.  Now  we 
shall  cooperate  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  we  teach,  and  direct,  and 
persuade  in  our  ministry,  as  he  teaches,  directs,  and  persuades  in 
the  souls  of  those  whom  he  visits  in  mercy.  Thus  all  is  true  and 
holy  in  the  requirements  of  the  law  and  the  gospel ;  all  is  bene- 
volent and  holy  in  the  work  of  Christ  and  in  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  all  is  faithful  and  holy  in  the  teachings  of  his  minis- 
ters ;  —  and  there  is  nothing  wrong  but  in  the  hearts  of  unbeliev- 
ing, rebelhous  men  ;  and  that  wrong  ceases  so  far  as  they  obey 
the  united  teachings  of  the  word,  the  Spirit,  and  the  ministers  of 
Christ. 


LECTURE    XC. 


EVIDENCES  OF  THE  NEW  BIKTH.  GENERAL  RULE  OF  JUDGMENT. 
DIFFICULTIES  OF  APPLYING  THE  RULE  TO  INDIVIDUALS.  CAU- 
TIONS  TO   BE   OBSERVED. 

Having  discussed  the  subject  of  regeneration  in  various  points 
of  view,  I  shall  now  consider  the  evidences  of  it,  or  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  made  known.  In  what  way  then,  or  bj  what  means 
are  we  to  judge,  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  has  wrought  a  saving 
change  in  ourselves  or  others  ? 

The  general  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  found  in  the  declaration 
of  Christ ;  "  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits."  His  illustra- 
tion of  this  is  taken  from  the  natural  world.  "  Do  men  gather 
grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles  ?  Even  so  every  good  tree 
bringeth  forth  good  fruit ;  but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil 
fruit.     Wherefore  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

The  character  of  man  cannot  be  known  by  us,  as  it  is  by  God, 
who  looks  on  the  heart,  and  knows  perfectly,  without  means,  and 
without  any  liability  to  mistake,  all  the  affections  and  habits  of  the 
mind.  All  the  knowledge  we  can  attain  on  the  subject,  must  be 
derived  from  what  is  visible  to  us.  The  nature  of  a  tree  is  known 
by  its  fruit.  We  may  sometimes  undertake  to  judge  of  a  tree, 
which  has  not  as  yet  borne  any  fruit.  But  as  soon  as  the  fruit 
appears,  its  quality  determines  our  opinion  of  the  quahty  of  the 
tree. 

The  instructions  of  Christ,  however,  do  not  imply,  that  we  can 
obtain  an  infallible  knowledge  of  the  characters  of  men.  They 
only  imply,  that  so  far  as  it  belongs  to  us  in  the  present  world  to 


EVIDENCES    OF    REGENERATION.  45 

judge  of  our  fellow  creatures,  we  are  to  do  it  by  observing  their 
conduct.  If  their  actions  are  right,  we  must  conclude  that  their 
character  is  right.  Actions  which  are  really  good,  are  a  certain 
proof  of  a  good  character.  But  actions  may  appear  to  us  to  be 
good,  which  are  not  so  in  reality.  We  should  be  aware  of  this. 
And  the  remembrance  of  our  liability  to  mistake  should  have  a 
proper  influence  upon  us,  whenever  we  form  an  opinion  of  the 
characters  of  men. 

In  judging  of  our  own  character,  we  are  to  proceed  on  the 
same  general  principle.  There  is  however  a  plain  diflference  be- 
tween the  two  cases.  We  can  have  a  more  extensive  and  partic- 
ular acquaintance  with  our  own  outward  actions,  than  with  those 
of  others.  And  as  to  the  whole  range  of  inward  affections,  dis- 
positions and  motives  —  we  are  directly  eonscious  of  them  in  our- 
selves ;  but  as  they  exist  in  others,  we  know  them  only  in  the  way 
of  inference  from  their  visible  conduct.  So  that,  if  we  were  free 
from  partiality,  we  should  be  under  far  better  advantages  for 
judging  of  ourselves,  than  for  judging  of  others.  But  so  great 
is  our  partiality  to  ourselves,  and  so  blinding  is  the  influence  of 
self-love,  that  notwithstanding  the  peculiar  advantages  which  we 
possess  for  forming  a  right  judgment  of  ourselves,  we  are  gener- 
ally more  liable  to  mistake  in  regard  to  our  own  character,  than 
in  regard  to  the  character  of  others. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  the  supreme  agent  in  renewing  sinners,  is  in- 
visible. His  agency,  in  itself,  separately  from  its  effects,  is  also 
invisible.  We  are  acquainted  with  the  divine  Spirit  and  with  his 
agency  in  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  in  the  same  way  as  we  are 
acquainted  with  the  divine  power  and  agency  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  If  you  had  been  looking  steadfastly  upon  the  body  of 
Jesus  in  the  tomb  at  the  time  of  its  resurrection,  what  would  you 
have  seen  ?  Would  you  have  seen  God  himself,  the  infinite  Spirit, 
in  his  own  nature  ?  No.  Would  you  have  seen  GocVs  power, 
as  an  attribute  of  his  own  infinite  mind  ?  No.  Would  you  have 
seen  the  divine  act  itself,  from  which  the  resurrection  followed  as 
an  effect  ?  No.  You  could  have  seen  nothing  but  the  effect 
produced  —  the  lifeless  body  revived  —  the  body  which  was  dead, 


46  EVIDENCES  OF  REGENERATION. 

living  and  moving.  And  you  could  have  had  no  evidence  that 
such  an  act  of  divine  power  had  taken  place,  or  that  the  principle 
of  life  had  been  imparted,  except  from  the  visible  effects  which 
followed  in  the  state  and  actions  of  the  reanimated  body.  The 
same  as  to  creation.  If  God  were  to  create  a  new  world,  and 
you  were  to  be  spectators  of  the  work,  what  Avould  you  behold  ? 
A  world  which  did  not  before  exist,  now  existing.  You  would  see 
the  effect ;  the  invisible  cause  you  would  infer.  The  manner  of 
the  new  birth  is  illustrated  by  the  motion  of  the  wind.  The  ef- 
fects of  it  we  behold.  But  the  wind  itself  and  its  motion  are 
invisible.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  look  upon  the  mind  itself,  and 
see  its  faculties,  its  qualities,  or  even  its  existence,  except  by 
means  of  its  visible  actions. 

This  is  the  principle  on  which  the  sacred  writers  proceed  when- 
ever they  undertake  to  show  us  how  to  judge  Avhether  men  are 
renewed  or  not.  Thus,  the  Apostle  John  represents  love  as  an 
evidence  of  regeneration.  —  "Love  is  of  God;  and  every  one 
that  loveth,  is  born  of  God."  He  also  represents /a^Y/i  as  an  evi- 
dence of  a  regenerate  state.  "  Whosoever  belie veth  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  He  speaks  in  the  same  way  of  a 
victory  over  the  world.  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God,  overcometh 
the  world."  Renouncing  sin  and  living  in  obedience  to  God,  is 
mentioned  as  another  characteristic  of  the  regenerate.  "  Whoso- 
ever is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin."  It  is  just  as  true  of 
other  branches  of  holiness,  as  of  those  mentioned  by  this  Apostle, 
that  they  are  evidences  of  regeneration.  Penitence  and  humility, 
love  to  God's  law,  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness, 
compassion  for  the  souls  of  men,  delight  in  prayer,  the  spirit  of 
forgiveness  and  self-denial  —  these  are  all  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and 
they  show  that  he  who  possesses  them  is  born  of  the  Spirit. 

But  if  men  are  known  by  their  fruits,  whence  arises  the  diffi- 
culty of  forming  a  right  judgment  respecting  their  character,  and 
the  manifest  danger  of  falling  into  mistakes  ?  If  we  find  the 
fruit  of  a  tree  to  be  figs,  are  we  not  sure  the  tree  is  a  fig  tree  ? 
If  we  find  grapes,  do  we  not  know  that  they  grow  from  a  grape- 
vine ?     In  like  manner,  if  men  bear  the  fruits  of  holiness,  may 


EVIDENCES  OF  REGENERATION.  4T 

we  not  conclude  with  certainty  that  they  are  in  a  regenerate 
state  ? 

Such  indeed  "would  be  our  conclusion,  could  we  certainly  deter- 
mine the  nature  of  the  fruit.  But  how  often  do  we  find  it  im- 
possible to  do  this  !  Here  we  come  upon  the  circumstances  which 
occasion  the  well-known  difficulty  of  forming  a  right  judgment 
of  the  characters  of  men. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  frequently  if  not  generally  the  case, 
that  those  who  are  regenerate,  exercise  holy  affections  in  only  a 
loiv  degree,  and  render  only  a  defective  obedience  to  the  divine 
commands.  Their  love  to  God,  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  their 
hatred  of  sin  are  so  feeble,  and  exert  so  imperfect  an  influence  on 
the  life,  that  it  is  hard  to  determine  whether  the  heart  is  renewed 
or  not.  How  it  comes  to  pass,  that  the  holy  affections  of  those 
who  are  born  again  are  so  feeble  and  imperfect,  I  shall  not  now 
inquire.  The  fact  is  obvious.  And  the  consequence  is,  that  we 
are  in  danger  of  judging  those  to  be  unregenerate,  in  whom  the 
work  of  sanctification  is  really  commenced.  Their  spiritual  hfe  is 
not  sufficiently  developed  to  prove  clearly  that  it  exists.  This 
view  of  the  subject  should  guard  us  against  forming  too  confident 
a  conclusion  against  those,  whose  evidence  of  piety  is  at  present 
defective.  To  decide  against  them  might  be  a  mistake.  And  it 
might  be  a  mistake  to  decide  in  their  favor.  The  dictate  of  wis- 
dom, in  such  a  case,  is,  to  suspend  our  judgment,  till  time  and 
circumstances  enable  us  to  form  a  moi-e  safe  and  correct  opinion. 

But  here  a  particular  danger  occurs.  Persons  learn  from  read- 
ing and  observation,  that  those  who  are  considered  to  be  real 
Christians,  have  generally  but  a  low  degree  of  religious  affection, 
and  obey  God  only  in  an  imperfect  manner.  Hence,  although 
destitute  of  hohness,  they  are  inclined  to  think  well  of  their  own 
state,  because  there  is  something  in  their  feelings  and  conduct 
which  is,  in  their  view,  equal  to  what  they  see  in  Christians. 
Thus  they  abuse  the  doctrine  of  the  imperfection  of  Christians  ; 
and  because  others  are  thought  to  be  regenerate,  who  have  but  a 
low  degree  of  piety,  they  think  themselves  regenerate,  when  they 
have  none. 


48  EVIDENCES  OF  REGENERATION. 

But  let  it  not  be  supposed  from  these  remarks,  that  a  low  de- 
gree of  holj  affection  and  obedience  necessarily  belongs  to  Chris- 
tians at  the  commencement  or  at  any  subsequent  stage  of  their 
piety.  Many  Christians  —  many  even  of  those  who  have  been 
recently  converted,  exhibit  such  strength  of  holy  affection,  and 
such  sincerity  and  earnestness  in  their  obedience,  as  to  afford  very 
satisfactory  evidence  that  they  have  been  born  of  the  Spirit. 
This  higher  degree  of  piety  is  to  be  acknowledged  as  a  signal  ef- 
fect of  divine  influence  ;  and  in  those  instances  where  it  exists,  it 
prevents  the  difficulty  above  mentioned. 

But  secondly ;  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  low  degree  of 
pious  affections,  is  greatly  increased  by  the  mixture  of  other  affeo- 
tions  of  an  opposite  character.  If  right  affections,  though  feeble, 
were  found  alone,  they  might  soon  afford  satisfactory  evidence  of 
regeneration.  But  this  evidence  is  obscured  by  the  sinful  affec- 
tions which  are  intermingled.  And  it  is  a  lamentable  fact,  that 
in  many,  I  will  not  say  most  Christians,  sinful  affections  seem  to 
constitute  the  greater  part.  This  fact  is  not  only  lamentable,  but 
astonishing,  and  ought  to  cause  the  deepest  humility  and  shame. 
Who  could  believe  such  a  thing,  were  it  not  made  evident  by 
Scripture  and  experience,  as  that  sinners,  who  have  been  re- 
deemed by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  have  tasted  the  blessedness  of  reconciliation  with  God,  would 
ever  forget  their  God  and  Saviour,  and  cleave  to  the  world,  and 
yield  to  the  influence  of  selfish,  earthly  desires  ?  Yet  many  know 
this  to  their  sorrow.  And  they  know  how  difficult  it  is,  amid  this 
prevalence  of  earthly  affections,  to  discover  any  clear  signs  of 
sanctification.  For  such  affections  not  only  occupy  the  place  in 
the  mind,  which  ought  to  be  occupied  by  holy  love,  but  they  ex- 
tinguish the  light  of  the  soul,  and  render  it  incapable  of  discern- 
ing spiritual  things,  or  of  judging  between  what  is  holy  and  what 
is  unholy. 

Thirdly,  the  difficulty  is  still  further  increased  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  so  many  affections  have  an  appearance  of  holiness, 
when  they  are  destitute  of  the  reality.  The  tree  is  indeed  known 
by  the  fruit.     But  suppose  that,  while  there  is  in  fact  no  fruit 


EVIDENCES    OF    REGENERATION.  4^ 

which  is  truly  good,  there  is  much  which  appears  to  be  good.  Is 
it  not  difficult  for  those  who  notice  this  appearance  of  good  fruit, 
to  know  the  quality  of  the  tree  ?  The  general  rule  which  has 
been  stated,  is  true  and  important.  The  tree  is  known  by  the 
fruit.  There  is  no  other  rule  which  we  are  capable  of  applying. 
But  if  circumstances  occur  which  make  it  impossible  or  difficult 
for  us  to  determine  what  the  fruit  is,  it  will  be  equally  impossible 
or  difficult  to  determine  what  is  the  quaUty  of  the  tree.  So  in 
regard  to  character.  Holy  exercises  furnish  real  evidence  of 
regeneration.  But  where  is  the  evidence,  when  we  are  unable  to 
know  whether  there  are  any  holy  exercises,  or  not  ? 

Fourthly.  There  is  one  more  circumstance,  which  renders  it 
difficult  for  Christians  to  form  a  satisfactory  opinion  of  their  char- 
acter ;  namely,  that  their  right  exercises  are  so  often  interrupted. 
Could  we  find  a  continued  series  of  good  exercises,  even  though 
deficient  in  strength,  we  should  have  opportunity  to  examine  them  ; 
and  might  at  length  be  satisfied  that  they  are  the  genuine  fruits 
of  the  Spirit.  But  if  we  have  right  affections,  how  soon  are  they 
interrupted  !  How  soon  do  other  feelings  arise,  and  change  the 
posture  of  the  mind  !  Now  the  tree  bears  good  fruit ;  now  bad. 
What  confusion  does  this  create  in  our  attempts  to  determine 
what  the  tree  is  ! 

Other  circumstances  might  be  mentioned  ;  but  these  are  suffi- 
cient to  account  for  it,  that  so  many  Christians,  both  at  the  be- 
ginning and  through  the  whole  progress  of  their  spiritual  life,  are 
subject  to  doubts,  and  enjoy  so  little  of  the  comforts  of  hope. 
The  same  circumstances  expose  us  to  mistakes  in  regard  to  the 
characters  of  others. 

Having  considered  the  general  rule  by  which  we  are  to  judge 
of  characters,  and  various  difficulties  attending  the  application 
of  the  rule  in  regard  both  to  ourselves  and  to  others  ;  I  proceed 
to  remark,  that  the  evidence  of  regeneration  e2:ists  in  a  great  va- 
riety of  degrees.  This  evidence  will  generally  be  clear  and  satis- 
factory to  Christians  in  proportion  to  the  strength  and  permanence 
of  their  pious  affections.  The  degree  of  repentance,  faith  and 
love  among  Christians  is  exceedingly  various.     It  is  hardly  to  be 

VOL.  in.  5 


60  EVIDENCES    OF    REGENERATION. 

supposed  that  anv  two  of  thein  have  exactly  the  same  measure  of 
holiness.  This  measure  varies  also  in  each  individual  Christian  at 
different  times.  The  pious  affections  of  a  young  convert  may  be 
strong  and  elevated,  and  may  thus  make  it  manifest,  that  he  is 
indeed  born  of  the  Spirit.  But  his  affections  may  afterwards  be- 
come low  and  feeble  ;  and  he  may  wholly  or  in  part  lose  the  evi- 
dence of  his  renewal.  Then  he  may  be  roused  from  his  spiritual 
sloth,  and  attain  to  higher  exercises  of  piety  than  ever  before,  and 
may  in  this  Avay  attain  to  proportionably  clearer  evidence  of 
Christian  character. 

It  is  a  question  not  easily  answered,  how  far  a  Christian  in  a 
time  of  spiritual  declension  may  consider  the  feelings  he  had  and 
the  actions  he  performed  in  his  better  days,  as  a  proof  that  he 
is  a  child  of  God.  The  recollection  of  former  love,  obedience 
and  joy  may  have  and  ought  to  have  some  influence  upon  a 
Christian  in  seasons  of  backsliding  and  darkness.  It  ought,  at 
least,  to  encourage  and  excite  him  to  return  to  God,  and  to  hope 
in  his  mercy.  In  a  qualified  sense,  past  exercises  of  piety  may 
be  regarded  as  indications  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  begun  his 
saving  work  in  the  heart.  And  regarding  them  in  this  light  may 
be  not  only  safe,  but  salutary,  if  it  leads  the  believer  to  a  thor- 
ough repentance,  to  gratitude,  and  to  watchfulness  against  sin. 
But  it  is  often,  if  not  generally  true,  that  a  Christian  who  has 
wandered  from  God,  is  incapable  of  enjoying  the  comforts  of  relig- 
ion ;  and  that,  while  he  refuses  to  return  from  his  wandering,  any 
attempt  to  derive  evidence  of  his  good  estate  from  his  past  expe- 
rience, would  be  injurious  to  his  spiritual  interests.  The  proper 
business  of  one  in  such  a  state  is  penitently  to  confess  his  sins, 
to  return  to  God,  to  exercise  faith  in  Christ,  and  to  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life.  Let  him  do  this,  and  he  will  have  no  occasion  to 
rely  upon  former  experience.  His  repentance,  his  return  to  God, 
his  faith,  and  his  holy  obedience,  will  at  once  furnish  evidence  of 
his  happy  state.  As  to  comfort  —  he  ought  never  to  make  it  a 
direct  and  primary  object.  Ordinarily  he  will  enjoy  as  much  as 
is  suitable  to  his  condition.  And  his  enjoyment  will  be  more 
pure  and  more  exquisite,  when  he  has  it  without  seeking  it. 


EVIDENCES     OF    REGENERATION.  6!f' 

Here  is  a  suitable  place  to  suggest  another  view  of  the  subject, 
which  I  regard  as  of  great  practical  importance,  especially  to 
ministers  of  the  gospel ;  that  is,  the  manifest  impropriety  of  form- 
ing and  expressing  a  confident  conclusion  that  sinners  are  converted, 
before  they  have  had  sufficient  time  to  exhibit  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit.  I  say,  a  confident  conclusion.  For  we  may  certainly  be- 
gin to  entertain  a  favorable  opinion  of  any  one  who  begins  to  show 
signs  of  repentance.  We  should  notice  with  pleasure  any  evi- 
dence of  a  change  of  heart,  yea,  any  indication  of  uncommon 
seriousness,  however  recent  it  may  be.  But  who  can  undertake 
to  judge  of  the  character  of  others,  upon  a  brief  acquaintance 
with  their  conduct,  Avithout  liability  to  mistake  ?  Those  natural 
affections  which  belong  to  unregenerate  man,  may  assume^  the 
similitude  of  religion.  That  heart  which  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  may  put  on  appearances  so  fair  and  promising,  that  you 
can  hardly  refuse  to  cherish  the  idea  that  the  work  of  grace  has 
been  accomplished.  Many  of  those  who  give  pleasing  evidence 
of  a  new  heart,  do,  after  a  time,  forsake  the  ways  of  piety,  and 
show  by  their  conduct,  that  all  the  appearances  of  religion  in 
them  have  been  deceptive.  Now  if  the  history  of  the  church 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time  proves  this  to 
be  a  matter  of  fact ;  ought  we  not  to  remember  it  ?  If  any  sin- 
ners, by  a  sudden  change  in  their  conversation  and  conduct,  make 
the  impression  on  our  minds  that  they  have  been  born  of  the 
Spirit,  ought  not  the  impression  to  be  somewhat  qualified  by  the 
thought,  that  their  future  life  may  occasion  a  disappointment  of 
our  hopes  ?  Is  it  the  dictate  of  wisdom  —  is  it  according  to  the 
will  of  God,  that  we  should  indulge  and  express  as  confident  a 
persuasion  of  the  piety  of  those  who  have  turned  their  attention 
to  the  subject  of  religion  only  a  few  days  or  hours,  as  of  those 
who  have  been  long  walking  in  the  ways  of  godliness,  and  have 
manifested  the  Christian  temper  in  seasons  of  severe  trial  ? 
Should  not  the  deceitfulness  of  the  heart  and  the  subtlety  of  the 
wicked  one  be  subjects  of  consideration,  when  we  go  about  to 
form  an  opinion  of  the  religious  character  of  those  around  us  ? 
Should  they  not  be  subjects  of  particular  instruction  in  a  revival 


9S  EVIDENCES  OP  REGENERATION. 

of  religion  ?     When  sinners  begin  to  awake  to  the   things  which 
belong  to  their  peace,  should  thej  not  be  apprised  of  the  dangers 
and  delusions  to  which  they  are  exposed,  and   taught  how  to  es- 
cape them  ?     How  did  Christ  treat  this  subject  during  his  public 
ministry  ?     Did  he  leave  his  disciples  or  any  of  his  hearers  to 
suppose,  that  all  those   whose  feelings   were    moved  under   the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  who  gave  visible  signs  of  repentance, 
were  really  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  heaven  ?     Read  the  par- 
able of  the  sower,  in  which  he  portrays  the  different  characters 
of  those  who  enjoy  divine  instructions.     "  Some  seed,"  he  says, 
"  fell  upon  stony  places,  where  they  had  not  much  earth  ;  and 
forthwith  sprmig  up,  because  they  had  no  depth  of  earth.     And 
when  the  sun  was  up,  they  were  scorched ;  and  because  they  had 
no  root,  they  withered  away."     This,  he  tells  us,  represents  those 
who  hear  the  word,  and  at  once  receive  it ;  yet  have  not  root  in 
themselves,  and  endure  only  for  a  while.     As  the  sudden  vegeta- 
tion of  the  seed  was  owing  to  the   very  fact,  that  there   was  no 
depth  of  soil,  so  the   sudden  kindling  of  religious  affection  and 
joy,  Avhich  sometimes  appears  under  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
results  from  the  want  of  deep  seriousness  and  of  a  thorough  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.     The  parable  also  represents  other  classes  of 
hearers  who,  though  more  or  less  affected  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, are  not  savingly  benefitted ;  and  refers  to  only  one  class, 
in  whom  the  word  produces  the  proper  effect. 

Again,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  to  a  man  who  sowed 
good  seed  in  his  field  ;  but  while  men  slept,  his  enemy  came  and 
sowed  tares  among  the  wheat."  The  tares  came  up,  and  were  so 
mingled  with  the  wheat,  and  so  like  it,  that  they  could  not  be 
safely  separated  from  it  before  the  time  of  the  harvest. 

In  these  and  other  waj^s,  our  Saviour  took  pains  to  teach  us, 
how  deceitful  are  the  hearts  of  men,  how  liable  we  are  to  mistake 
in  judging  of  their  character,  and  how  different  the  final  result 
of  the  gospel  dispensation  will  be  from  what  present  appearances 
would  seem  to  indicate.  And  it  is  incumbent  on  the  ministers  of 
Christ  to  repeat  and  explain  the  instructions  and  warnings  which 
their  Lord  gave,  and  to  use  them  for  the  welfare  of  the  church. 


EVIDENCES  OF  REGENERATION.  68 

We  ought  indeed  to  desire  and  pray,  that  the  seed  sown  may 
spring  up.  But  is  it  a  matter  of  no  concern  with  us,  Avhether  it 
spring  up  hke  the  seed  on  stony  places,  for  want  of  a  deep  soil, 
or  like  the  seed  on  good  ground  ?  While  we  are  diUgent  in  sow- 
ing wheat  in  our  Lord's  field,  and  long  to  see  it  covered  with  an 
abundant  vegetation,  shall  we  consider  it  no  evil,  if  the  enemy 
should  come  and  sow  tares  in  the  field  ?  And  though  for  a  time 
we  may  not  be  able  to  distinguish  the  tares  from  the  wheat ; 
shall  we  be  unmindful  of  the  evil  of  having  them  there  ? 

The  plain  and  solemn  admonitions  of  Christ  on  this  subject 
should  not  be  neglected.  We  should  listen  to  them  for  our  own 
benefit,  and  proclaim  them  for  the  benefit  of  others.  Love  to 
Christ  and  his  church,  and  faithfulness  to  the  souls  of  men  require 
this.  If  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things ;  if  appearances 
may  be  fallacious  ;  if  there  may  be  strong  emotions  on  the  subject 
of  rehgion,  without  holiness,  —  if  these  things  are  facts,  they 
ought  surely  to  be  declared.  I  do  not  say,  that  such  instructions 
and  warnings  should  be  given  in  every  sermon.  The  truth  which 
pertains  to  this  particular  subject,  does  not  constitute  the  substance 
of  the  Christian  religion,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  dwelt  upon  as 
though  it  did.  And  it  is  my  apprehension,  that  some  preachers 
and  some  writers  give  comparatively  too  much  attention  to  the 
mere  trial  of  character,  and  too  little  to  those  essential,  moving 
truths,  which  contribute  directly  to  the  formation  of  character. 
But  because  the  instructions  and  cautions  to  which  I  refer,  do  not 
constitute  the  great  system  of  divine  truth,  it  does  not  follow  that 
they  constitute  no  part  of  it.  Nor  does  it  follow  that  they  are  of 
little  consequence,  or  that  they  can  be  passed  in  silence  without 
danger  to  the  interests  of  religion.  They  will  be  found  to  be 
specially  important  to  those  who  have  a  direct  agency  in  building 
up  the  church.  For  surely  they  ought  to  look  well  to  the  mate- 
rial to  be  used  in  the  building,  and  to  distinguish  gold,  and  silver, 
and  precious  stones  from  hay,  wood,  and  stubble.  In  truth,  these 
instructions  are  important  to  every  man  on  earth  ;  because  every 
man  is  soon  to  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  and  his 
mistaking  his  own  character  now  and  thinking  himself  a  believer 

6* 


54  EVIDENCES  OF  REGENERATION. 

when  he  is  not,  will  be  followed  by  a  woful  disappointment  and 
loss.  High  and  sacred  are  the  obligations  which  bind  the  minis- 
ters of  Christ  to  fidelity  in  regard  to  this  interesting  subject. 
How  can  we  think  without  anguish,  of  meeting  poor,  deluded  sin- 
ners at  the  last  day  who  once  thought  themselves  heirs  of  heaven, 
and  who  will  discover  their  fatal  error  too  late  !  And  how  could 
we  bear  to  hear  any  of  them  accost  us  in  such  language  as  this  : 
Why  did  you  not  tell  us  of  the  deceit/ ulness  of  sin  and  the  wiles  of 
Satan  ?  Why  did  you  suffer  us  to  number  ourselves  with  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  without  pointing  out  to  us  the  various  sources  of 
fatal  self-deception  to  which  we  were  exposed  ? 

As  ministers  of  Christ  we  should  faithfully  declare  the  counsel 
of  God,  and  watch  for  souls  as  those  who  must  give  an  account. 
In  the  exercise  of  candor  and  justice,  we  ought  to  hope  well  of 
those  who  show  any  signs  of  conversion.  And  our  benevolence 
should  lead  us  to  rejoice  over  every  sinner  who,  in  the  judgment 
of  charity,  gives  evidence  of  repentance.  But  hope  and  joy  are  not 
the  only  feelings  we  should  cherish  and  manifest  toward  those  who 
appear  to  be  setting  out  in  the  way  to  heaven.  We  cannot  know 
for  a  certainty  that  they  have  experienced  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  for  us  to  treat  them  as  though  we  did  know  it, 
would  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  would  be  an  injury  to 
them,  whether  truly  converted,  or  not.  Love  and  faithfulness 
require  us  to  tell  them  without  reserve,  what  the  truth  is  in 
regard  to  their  case.  If  it  is  a  truth  that  the  heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things,  and  that  many  who  have  manifested  love  to 
Christ  and  sorrow  for  sin,  have  afterwards  shown  themselves  to  be 
strangers  to  the  grace  of  God  ;  this  ought  to  be  declared.  If  it  is 
a  truth,  that  the  best  evidence  of  their  regeneration  must  consist, 
not  so  much  in  present  appearances,  however  pleasing,  as  in  a 
imiform  course  of  humiUty,  obedience,  and  usefulness  in  their  sub- 
sequent life  ;  that  we  cannot  feel  any  assurance  that  they  are  real 
Christians,  before  they  have,  for  some  time,  exhibited  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit ;  this  is  what  we  should  endeavor  to  impress  upon 
their  minds.  If  it  is  a  truth  that  appearances  of  sudden  conver- 
sion sometimes  arise  from  the  very  fact,  that  there  is  no  thorough 


EVIDENCES    OF    REGENERATION.  66 

conviction  of  sin,  and  no  deep  impression  of  divine  things ;  this 
truth  should  not  be  concealed.  If  it  is  a  truth  that,  at  the  judg- 
ment daj,  surprising  discoveries  will  be  made  as  to  the  characters 
of  those  -who  now  profess  to  be  Christians ;  —  that  manj,  once 
numbered  with  the  followers  of  Christ,  will  then  be  found  hke  the 
foolish  virgins  who  had  no  oil  with  their  lamps ;  this  is  a  truth 
which  we  ought  faithfully  to  teach.  If  the  judgment  day  will 
show,  by  many  a  sorrowful  example,  that,  though  a  man  speak  with 
the  tongue  of  men  and  of  angels  ;  though  he  understand  all  mys- 
teries and  all  knowledge  ;  though  he  preach  the  gospel  in  Christ- 
ian or  in  heathen  lands,  and  die  as  a  martyr ;  if  he  have  not  that 
holy  love  which  is  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  he  is  nothing,  and  will  at 
last  hear  the  voice  of  him,  whose  gospel  he  preached,  saying  to 
him,  ^^  I  never  knew  you  ;""  this  is  a  truth  of  inexpressible  impor- 
tance to  ministers,  and  in  the  expectation  of  the  all-revealing  day, 
they  ought  most  seriously  to  inculcate  it  upon  each  other,  and 
upon  themselves.  It  was  under  the  influence  of  such  a  view  of 
the  subject,  that  even  Paul,  distinguished  as  he  was  among  the 
apostles,  felt  it  to  be  necessary  to  take  great  and  constant  care, 
lest,  after  preaching  the  gospel  to  others,  he  himself  should  be 
disapproved. 


LECTURE    XCI. 


NATURE  OF  TRUE  VIRTUE,  OR  HOLINESS.  DEFINITION.  MORAL 
LAW  THE  STANDARD.  GENERAL  BENEVOLENCE  AND  REGARD 
TO   PRIVATE   GOOD   CONSISTENT. 

The  nature  of  that  virtue  or  holiness,  which  results  from  the 
renovating  influence  of  the  Spirit,  has  been  noticed  more  or  less 
in  the  preceding  Lectures  ;  but  I  propose  now  to  consider  it  more 
particularly.  What  then  is  holiness  f  And  how  shall  it  he 
described  ? 

Edwards  defines  it  to  be,  hve  to  being  in  general.  This  defi- 
nition of  virtue,  as  intended  and  explained  bj  the  author,  is,  I 
doubt  not,  conformed  to  truth.  But,  as  a  definition,  is  it  exactly 
and  logically  correct?  To  define  a  thing  is,  literally,  to  mark 
out  its  limits  or  bounds.  In  a  more  general  view,  it  is  to  describe 
those  qualities  and  circumstances  of  a  thing  which  make  it  what  it 
is,  and  which  distinguish  it  from  everything  else.  Suppose,  in 
defining  an  elephant,  you  say,  he  is  an  animal.  The  proposition 
is  true  ;  but  it  forms  no  proper  definition  of  an  elephant,  as  it 
does  not  distinguish  him  from  a  horse,  an  eagle,  or  a  whale.  Nor 
is  it  sufficient  to  say,  he  is  a  quadruped  and  of  great  strength. 
For  this  is  true  of  other  animals.  A  naturahst,  in  giving  an 
exact  definition  of  the  elephant,  would  describe  those  attributes 
which  distinguish  him  irom  all  other  animals.  A  complete  defini- 
tion must  give  the  genus,  that  is,  the  general  nature  of  the  thing 
defined,  and  the  species,  that  is,  the  qualities  which  show  what  it 
is  in  distinction  from  everything  else.  Take  now  the  definition  of 
virtue  or  holiness  above  noticed.      Virtue  is  love  to  being  in  gene- 


NATURE    OF    HOLINESS.  57 

ral.  It  is  doubtless  love  ;  but  to  what  ?  Being  in  general  com- 
prises all  that  exists,  whether  material  or  spiritual.  But  the 
author  shows  that  he  did  not  mean  to  include  all  this.  He 
referred  only  to  intelligent^  moral  beings.  His  definition,  then, 
was  too  large,  including  more  than  was  intended.  It  should  have 
been  expressly  limited  to  intelligent,  moral  beings.  Again.  We 
cannot  love  intelligent,  moral  beings,  except  so  far  as  we  know 
them,  or  have  an  apprehension  of  them.  And  as  our  knowledge 
of  intelligent  beings  is  very  limited,  so  must  our  love  be.  This, 
too,  should  be  expressed  in  an  exact  and  complete  definition  ; 
thus  :  virtue  is  love  to  intelligent  beings^  so  far  as  tJiey  are  ajypre- 
hended.  But  it  plainly  implies  a  disposition  to  love  other  intelli- 
gent beings,  who  shall  hereafter  be  made  known  to  us.  And  this, 
too,  might  be  included  in  the  definition,  as  it  is  in  the  particular 
explanation  which  the  author  gives.  Virtue  is  love  to  intelligent, 
moral  beings,  so  far  as  they  are  known,  implying  a  disposition  to 
extend  our  love,  as  knowledge  shall  be  increased.  And  this  more 
extensive  love  will  be  only  a  further  development  of  the  same 
affection  ;  this  further  development  resulting,  as  a  natural  conse- 
quence, from  the  existence  of  holy  affection  in  the  heart.  For 
example  ;  if  we  have  a  benevolent  feeling  towards  a  few  beings, 
because  they  are  rational  and  immortal,  and  capable  of  happiness 
or  misery  ;  we  shall,  for  the  same  reason,  have  a  benevolent  feel- 
ing towards  other  beings  of  like  nature.  But  the  virtuous  man 
does  not  love  all  intelligent  beings  in  the  same  manner  and 
degree.  He  does  not  love  wicked  beings  with  an  emotion  of  the 
same  kind  as  he  loves  good  beings ;  the  last  including  compla- 
cency as  well  as  benevolence,  whereas  the  former  is  benevolence  or 
good  will  merely.  The  love  of  virtuous,  holy  beings  varies  also 
in  degree,  according  to  the  degree  of  excellence  or  worth  posses- 
sed by  those  who  are  its  objects. 

All  these  points  are  brought  into  view  in  the  explanation  which 
Edwards  gives  of  his  definition  of  virtue  —  a  definition  which, 
taken  by  itself,  is  incomplete,  and  could  not  be  expected  to  con- 
vey the  sense  intended. 

The  distinction  of  holy  love  into  benevolence  and  complacency^ 


58  NATURE    OF    HOLINESS. 

which  has  just  been  hinted  at,  is  grounded  in  the  nature  of  the 
affection,  as  it  stands  related  to  different  objects.  If  we  love 
those  who  are  not  holy,  our  love  will  take  the  form  of  benevo- 
lence, and  will  act  itself  out  in  desires  and  endeavors  that  they 
may  be  holy  and  happy.  If  the  objects  of  our  love  are  created 
beings,  who  are  now  in  a  degree  holy  and  happy,  but  who  are 
liable  to  sin  and  suffering,  in  this  case  our  love  will  operate  in  the 
way  of  both  benevolence  and  complacency. 

But  how  is  it  in  regard  to  the  Supreme  Being,  who  possesses 
infinite  and  unchangeable  perfection  and  blessedness  ?  Is  he  the 
object  of  benevolence  ?  Are  we  to  desire  his  holiness  and  blessed- 
ness ?  We  may  desire  to  be  partakers  of  holiness  and  blessed- 
ness ourselves  ;  but  is  it  proper  to  say,  that  good  men  desire  that 
God  may  be  perfectly  and  unchangeably  holy  and  happy  ?  Now 
we  must  consider  that  desire,  properly  speaking,  is  excited  by  the 
absence  or  want  of  some  good  ;  it  is  an  eagerness  to  obtain  some- 
thing not  now  possessed.  If  it  relates  to  another,  it  is  a  wish 
that  he  may  obtain  some  good  which  he  does  not  now  enjoy.  But 
how  can  we,  properly  speaking,  be  said  to  desire  to  have  ourselves, 
or  to  desire  that  another  should  have,  what  is  already  possessed  ? 
You  may  ask  whether  the  continuance  of  the  good  may  not  be  a 
proper  object  of  desire  ?  Evidently  it  may  be,  if  the  good  is  in 
any  way  liable  to  be  lost.  But  suppose  there  is  no  possibility  of 
its  being  lost  —  suppose  the  perpetual  continuance  of  it  is  as 
absolutely  certain  as  the  present  possession  of  it,  which  is  the 
case  with  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  God  —  how  can  we  then 
desire  it  ?  What  place  for  desire,  when  all  the  good  contem- 
plated is  now  in  certain  and  unchangeable  possession  ?  If,  then, 
we  speak  of  God  as  the  object  of  our  benevolence,  it  must  be  in  a 
somewhat  indefinite  sense,  —  not  that  we,  strictly  speaking,  desire 
his  hohness  or  his  happiness.  But  here  is  the  place  for  the  dis- 
tinctive exercise  of  complace^icy .  We  take  pleasure  in  the 
unbounded  moral  excellence  and  blessedness  of  God.  Considered 
as  perfectly  holy  and  happy,  he  is  the  object  of  our  perfect  com- 
placency. He  is,  indeed,  the  object  of  our  desire ;  that  is,  we 
desire  to  behold  him,  to  see  him  as  he  is,  and  to  enjoy  him.     This 


NATURE    OF    HOLINESS.  59 

is  a  good  -which  we  do  not  enjoy,  except  in  a  very  low  and  imper- 
fect degree.  The  full  enjoyment  of  it  is,  therefore,  to  us  an  object 
of  desire. 

But  is  it  not  our  duty  to  desire  and  seek  the  glory  of  God, 
though  it  is  infinite  and  immutable  ?  Certainly  this  is  our  duty. 
But  in  what  sense  ?  We  are  not  to  desire  that  God  may  have 
more  intrinsic  excellence  and  tvorthiness  than  he  has.  We  are 
not  to  seek  to  make  any  addition  to  his  glorious  perfection. 
What,  then,  are  we  to  desire  and  seek  ?  Why,  we  are  to  desire 
and  seek  to  promote  what  is  capable  of  being  promoted,  namely, 
what  is  called  his  declarative  glory.  In  other  words,  we  are  to 
desire  that  God's  infinite  and  unchangeable  perfections  may  be 
more  and  more  acted  out,  and  more  and  more  known,  acknowl- 
edged and  adored  by  his  creatures.  And  tliis  we  shall  do  in 
consequence  of  our  love  to  God ;  just  as  we  desire  that  others  may 
esteem  and  love  a  parent  or  friend,  towards  whom  we  entertain  a 
sincere  affection  and  esteem.  In  such  a  case,  we  contemplate  a 
good  not  yet  accomplished  or  enjoyed.  None  of  our  fellow-men 
know  and  honor  God  in  as  high  a  degree  as  they  are  capable  of; 
and  some  of  them  not  at  all.  Here,  then,  is  something  to  be 
desired  and  sought.  We  wish,  and  labor,  and  pray,  that,  through 
the  merciful  agency  of  God,  our  fellow-men  may  more  fully  know 
his  supremely  excellent  character,  and  may  more  duly  honor  him 
by  a  sincere  worship  and  obedience.  This  is  a  good  which  the 
friends  of  God  will  forever  desire  and  seek,  both  for  themselves 
and  for  others.  It  is  a  good  to  which  neither  they  nor  their 
fellow-men  have  as  yet  attained,  and  to  which  they  never  will 
attain,  in  such  a  measure  as  to  exclude  all  increase  ;  so  that  the 
increasing  exercise  and  display  of  God's  wisdom,  power,  and 
goodness  will  forever  be  an  object  of  their  desire  —  a  desire  re- 
sulting from  a  supreme  affection  towards  God  and  good  will  to  his 
creatures. 

Some  excellent  writers  define  holiness  to  be  disinterested  bene- 
volence. The  thing  intended  is  doubtless  right.  And  the  expres- 
sion sets  forth  the  truth  as  clearly,  perhaps,  as  can  be  done  by 
any  other  phrase  as  brief  as  this..     Still  some  explanation  is 


60  NATUBE    OF    HOLINESS. 

required.  The  word  disinterested  is  sometimes  thought  to  be  of 
nearly  the  same  import  with  ?«iinterested.  According  to  this, 
holiness  would  be  a  benevolence  which  takes  no  interest  in  its 
object,  —  which  would  be  a  contradiction.  Others  have  considered 
the  word  disinterested  as  excluding  all  regard  to  our  own  welfare. 
Whereas  it  is  evident  that  having  no  regard  to  our  own  welfare 
would  be  directly  contrary  not  only  to  the  dictates  of  our  sensi- 
tive nature,  but  to  the  impulse  of  grace,  and  to  the  requirements 
of  the  divine  law,  and  would  be  as  real  a  fault  as  having  no 
regard  to  the  welfare  of  others.  But  the  word  is  in  good  use, 
and,  in  its  common  acceptation,  signifies  the  opposite  of  selfish- 
ness. A  man  is  selfish  who  is  devoted  wholly  or  chiefly  to  his 
own  interest,  and  is  without  any  just  regard  to  the  good  of 
others.  To  be  disinterested,  or  unselfish,  is  the  opposite  of  this. 
A  man's  benevolence  or  kindness  to  his  neighbors,  is  disinter 
ested,  if  he  loves  their  good  for  its  own  sake  ;  if  his  love  fixes 
upon  their  welfare  as  its  real  object,  and  I  would  say,  too,  as  an 
ultimate  object.  He  is  disinterested,  so  far  as  his  affection  or 
kindness  towards  them  is  not  influenced,  directly  or  indirectly,  by 
a  regard  to  his  own  private  interest.  If  I  bestow  a  favor  upon  my 
neighbors  merely  for  the  purpose  of  securing  their  friendship  and 
obtaining  favors  from  them  in  return  ;  or  if  I  do  it  for  the  honor 
or  for  the  pleasure  of  being  benevolent ;  if  I  seek  the  salvation 
of  others  for  the  sake  of  being  saved  myself,  or  for  the  sake  of 
promoting  my  own  credit  or  comfort ;  —  in  all  this  I  am  selfish. 
I  act  from  interested  motives.  But  may  not  a  man  who  has  true, 
disinterested  love,  set  a  high  value  upon  his  own  welfare  ?  May 
he  not  desire  and  seek  his  own  honor,  profit,  and  pleasure,  espe- 
cially his  own  future  happiness  ?  Yes,  he  may  do  this,  and,  if  he 
has  real  goodness,  he  certainly  will  do  it.  And  God,  who  com- 
mands us  to  exercise  holy  love,  often  presents  before  us  our  tem- 
poral, and  especially  our  eternal  well  being,  as  a  motive  to  influ- 
ence us  to  the  performance  of  our  duty.  Nor  is  there  any 
inconsistency  in  this.  For  if  we  are  truly  virtuous  and  holy,  we 
shall  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves  ;  and  of  course  we  shall  love 
ourselves  as  we  love  our  neighbor.     His  good  will  be  as  real  and 


NATURE    OP    HOLINESS.  01 

as  ultimate  an  object  of  oui-  desire  as  our  own,  and  our  own  as 
his.  And  if  at  any  time  we  should  forget  our  own  good,  or 
should  have  no  present  respect  to  it  in  our  thoughts,  we  should,  if 
truly  virtuous,  still  love  our  neighbor  and  desire  his  good.  So  on 
the  other  hand,  if  at  any  time  we  should  have  in  our  thoughts  no 
conscious  regard  to  our  neighbor's  good,  and  should  even  forget 
that  we  had  a  neighbor ;  we  should  still  love  ourselves,  and  desire 
our  own  happiness.  But  whether  we  are  aware  of  it  or  not, 
loving  our  neighbor  and  seeking  his  good,  will,  in  fact,  promote 
our  own  welfare  ;  and  it  is  equally  true,  that  loving  ourselves  and 
seeking  our  own  welfare  will  promote  the  good  of  others.  If  we 
think  of  the  one  or  the  other  of  these,  it  will  be  a  motive  to  right 
action.  The  benefit,  especially  the  future  reward,  which  will 
result  to  us  from  the  exercise  of  benevolence,  is  a  real  good,  and 
ought  to  be  so  regarded.  To  set  no  value  upon  it  would  be  doing 
violence  both  to  reason  and  to  virtue.  But  we  should  do  as  great 
violence  to  reason  and  virtue,  if  we  should  set  no  value  upon  the 
welfare  of  others.  For  their  welfare  is  a  real  good,  as  truly  as 
our  own  ;  and  it  should  be  as  really  an  object  of  our  desire.  We 
have,  then,  these  two  coordinate  objects  of  regard  —  these  com- 
bined motives  —  our  own  welfare  and  the  welfare  of  others.  By 
the  constitution  of  heaven,  these  objects  and  motives  are  insepara- 
bly joined  together,  and  should  exert  a  joint  influence  upon  us. 
Do  you  ask  which  of  these  is  the  chief  motive  or  object  ?  I 
answer,  the  divine  law  places  them  on  a  level.  "  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  According  to  the  spirit  of  this  precept, 
neither  of  these  exercises  or  forms  of  love  can  be  called  inferior, 
secondary,  or  subservient  to  the  other.  We  are  no  more  to  make 
the  welfare  of  our  fellow-men  inferior  and  subservient  to  our  own, 
than  we  are  to  make  our  own  welfare  inferior  and  subservient  to 
theirs.  The  fault  of  the  unholy,  selfish  man  is,  that  he  makes  his 
own  private  good  his  only  real  and  ultimate  object.  When  his 
actions,  how  benevolent  soever  they  may  at  first  appear  to  be,  are 
examined  and  analyzed,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  are  performed 
for  his  oion  sake.  If  he  loves  his  neighbor,  he  does  not  love  him 
as  himself,  but  for  himself.     His  character  is,  to  act  from  a 

VOL.  III.  6 


62  NATURE    OF    HOLINESS. 

regard  to  his  own  interest.  His  governing  principle,  the  spring 
of  his  conduct,  is  selfishness.  He  cares  Httlc  for  the  welfare  of 
others,  except  as  it  does  in  some  way  tend  to  advance  his  own. 
And  whenever  their  interest  comes  in  competition  with  his,  he 
cleaves  to  his  own,  and  sacrifices  or  neglects  theirs. 

After  all,  the  best  description  which  can  be  given  of  Christian 
virtue  or  holiness  is,  that  it  is  a  conformity  in  heart  and  life  to  the 
divine  Jaiv.  That  law  is  made  up  of  all  the  moral  precepts 
contained  in  the  Scriptures.  But  our  Saviour  has  given  us  a 
summary  of  the  law  in  two  comprehensive  precepts.  The  first  is, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
The  second  is  like  unto  it :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self." The  object  of  the  affection  required  in  the  first  of  these 
commands,  is  God  himself,  who  is  infinitely  excellent  and  glorious. 
The  measure  of  it  is  the  full  extent  of  the  powers  and  faculties  of  our 
minds.  If  you  ask,  why  we  are  to  love  God  in  this  manner,  the  an- 
swer is,  because  he  is  possessed  of  unlimited  perfection,  and  is 
therefore  Avorthy  of  our  supreme  love.  Why  do  we  love  any  intel- 
ligent being  ?  Because  he  possesses  what  deserves  our  love,  that 
is,  real  worth  or  excellence  of  character,  either  intellectual  or 
moral,  or  both.  And  it  is  certainly  reasonable  that  our  love  to 
any  one  should  be  in  proportion  to  his  excellence.  If  we  ought 
to  have  a  degree  of  love  towards  an  intelligent  being,  because  he 
has  some  degree  of  excellence  ;  we  ought  to  love  God  in  the  high- 
est degree,  that  is,  supremely,  because  he  is  supremely  excellent. 
This  is  the  reason  why  holy  beings  love  God  with  all  their  heart, 
and  soul,  and  mind.  His  supreme  excellence  is  the  objective 
ground  or  motive  of  their  love.  If  it  is  otherwise  —  if  we  love 
God  merely  for  the  favors  he  bestows  upon  us  —  merely  because  he 
promotes  or  because  we  hope  he  will  promote  our  interests  ;  then 
our  love  does  not  fix  upon  God  himself,  but  upon  his  favors ; 
and  in  reality  it  is  nothing  more  than  self-love. 

But  may  we  not  love  God  for  \\\ii  favors  ?  Does  not  the  Psalm- 
ist say,  "  I  love  the  Lord,  because  he  hath  heard  my  prayer ;" 
and  the  Apostle  —  "  We  love  him,  because  he  first  loved  us  ?  " 


NATURE    OF    HOLINESS,  63 

In  regard  to  this,  it  is  obvious  that  the  favors  God  bestows,  espe- 
cially the  blessings  of  redemption,  show  him  to  be  infinitely 
excellent  and  lovely  ;  they  manifest  the  perfection  of  his  character. 
God  can  never  be  the  real  object  of  our  love,  that  is,  our  love  can 
never  flow  forth  towards  him,  unless  we,  in  some  measure,  see  him 
to  be  what  he  is,  an  infinitely  excellent  being.  He  must  be  man- 
ifested to  us.  And  if  we  have  a  heart  to  love  him,  the  more 
clearly  he  is  manifested  to  us,  the  more  will  our  love  be  excited. 
If  an  affectionate  child  receives  a  precious  gift  from  his  father,  he 
sees  in  it  the  kindness  of  his  father's  heart.  The  gift  brings  to 
view  the  goodness  of  the  giver ;  and  the  more  excellent  the  gift, 
the  more  excellent  it  makes  his  character  appear.  lie  holds  the 
gift  itself  in  high  esteem ;  but  he  esteems  and  loves  the  giver  far 
more.  The  gift  is  more  dear  to  him,  because  of  the  giver ;  and 
the  giver  becomes  still  more  dear  to  him  because  of  the  gift.  It 
is  on  this  principle,  that  Christians  love  God  on  account  of  his 
favors.  They  primarily  and  essentially  love  God  himself — love 
him  for  his  own  supreme  excellence  and  goodness,  which  has  in 
some  measure  been  made  known  to  them.  And  as  they  love  God 
himself,  on  account  of  his  own  excellent  and  amiable  character, 
they  will  love  him  the  more,  Avhen  his  character  is  more  clearly 
manifested  to  them  by  the  precious  gifts  he  bestows.  The  fault 
of  those  who  followed  Christ  for  the  loaves,  was  not  that  they  set 
a  proper  value  upon  the  gift  he  bestowed,  but  that  they  valued  it 
merely  on  its  own  account  —  valued  it  in  a  selfish  manner  ;  "  not 
because  they  taw  the  miracle,"  which  evinced  the  divine  character 
of  Christ,  "  but  because  they  did  eat  of  the  loaves  and  were 
filled,"  and  because  they  hoped  to  be  filled  again.  They  cared 
for  nothing,  but  the  temporal  favor.  A  gift  has  a  two-fold  value  ; 
its  own  intrinsic  value,  and  its  value  as  an  expression  of  the  good- 
ness of  a  beloved  friend.  Now  the  gifts  of  God  are  of  great 
value  in  themselves.  How  precious  are  the  favors  he  bestows 
upon  us  in  his  common  providence  !  How  much  more  precious 
are  the  gifts  of  his  mercy  —  the  spiritual  blessings  which  come  to 
us  through  the  mediation  of  Christ !  How  great  the  value  which 
we  ought  to  set  upon  these  various  gifts  of  God,  considered  in 


64  NATURE    OF    HOLINESS. 

themselves !  But  they  have  a  still  higher  value,  when  we  con- 
sider them  as  manifestations  of  the  wonderful  and  glorious  good- 
ness of  God.  And  thus  our  admiring  gratitude  and  love  will,  in 
a  higher  and  higher  degree,  be  kindled  towards  our  heavenly 
Father  and  our  Redeemer  by  means  of  those  numberless  and 
precious  favors  which  display  him  before  us,  as  rich  in  mercy,  and 
exalted  and  glorious  in  all  his  perfections.  We  love  him  as  he  is 
revealed  to  us,  and  because  he  is  revealed  to  us  by  his  gifts.  And 
if  the  love  which  is  kindled  in  our  hearts  towards  God,  corres- 
ponds, so  far  as  our  capacity  admits,  with  his  manifested  excel- 
lence, —  this  is  the  love  which  is  required  by  the  first  and  great 
commandment.  This  is  holiness.  And  if  this  holy  love  is  not 
defective  in  degree,  and  is  free  from  the  mixture  of  opposite  af- 
fections, then  our  holiness  is  complete. 

If  we  have  a  heart  thus  to  love  God,  we  shall  of  course  con- 
form to  the  second  comprehensive  command,  and  shall  love  our 
neighbors  as  ourselves.  This  command  requires,  that  we  should 
exercise  a  cordial  aflfection  towards  our  fellow-creatures  ;  that  we 
should  set  a  high  value  upon  them  as  rational  and  immortal  be- 
ings ;  that  we  should  desire  and  seek  their  well-being,  present  and 
future,  as  sincerely  as  we  do  our  own  ;  that  we  should  be  as  un- 
willing to  injure  them  as  we  are  to  injure  ourselves ;  that  we 
should  rejoice  with  them  when. they  rejoice,  and  weep  with  them, 
when  they  weep ;  in  short,  that,  by  a  benevolent  sympathy,  we 
should  put  ourselves  in  their  place,  and  should  regard  them  as  a 
part  of  ourselves,  and  their  interest  as  part  of  our  own.  The 
affection  required  is  sincere,  impartial,  active,  and  enduring. 
Where  it  exists,  it  prompts  to  the  discharge  of  all  the  relative 
and  social  duties.  "  He  that  loveth  another,"  says  the  Apostle, 
"  hath  fulfilled  the  law ;  "  that  is,  the  law  respecting  our  fellow 
creatures.  "  For  this,  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  thou  shalt 
not  kill,  thou  shalt  not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness,  thou 
shalt  not  covet ;  and  if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is 
briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbor  ;  therefore  love  is 
the  fulfilling;  of  the  law." 


NATURE     OF    HOLINESS.  66' 

I  know  not  that  any  language  can  set  forth  the  nature  of  true 
virtue  more  clearly,  than  these  two  comprehensive  precepts.  And 
nothing  can  be  plainer  than  the  falsity  of  the  theory,  which  makes 
self-love  the  ground  of  all  holy  exercises,  or  which  asserts  that  a 
regard  to  our  own  personal  good  is  the  spring  or  motive  of  all  that  we 
do  for  the  good  of  others.  According  to  this  theory,  which  is  the 
theory  of  Paley  and  others,  we  are  to  love  God  and  obey  his  com- 
mands/or  the  sake  of  our  own  happiness.  Wliereas  in  truth  we 
are  to  love  God  primarily  and  chiefly  for  his  own  infinite  perfection. 
We  are  to  regard  him  as  being  himself  the  worthy  object  of  our 
supreme  affection.  And  as  to  our  fellow  men,  —  we  are  no  more 
to  love  them  for  the  sake  of  our  own  happiness,  than  we  are  to 
love  ourselves  for  the  sake  of  their  happiness.  In  a  proper  sense, 
we  are  to  do  both.  By  promoting  our  own  real  good,  we  are  to 
promote  the  good  of  others.  And  by  promoting  their  good,  we 
are  to  promote  our  own.  Their  good  and  our  own,  which  God  has 
joined  in  close  union,  should  both  be  objects  of  oui'  desire,  and 
they  should  have  a  mutual  influence,  each  having  an  increased 
value  in  our  esteem,  and  an  increased  efficacy  as  a  motive,  on 
account  of  the  other.  I  repeat  it,  that  if  we  are  conformed 
to  the  divine  law,  there  will  be  in  our  moral  exercises  no  more 
ultimate  reference  to  our  own  happiness,  than  to  the  happiness  of 
others.  If  our  own  happiness  is.  for  a  time,  absent  from  our 
thoughts,  and  so  is  not  an  object  of  our  present  regard,  we  shall 
not,  on  that  account,  have  less  regard  to  the  happiness  of  others. 
And  if  their  happiness  is  for  a  time  absent  from  our  thoughts,  we 
surely  shall  not,  on  that  account,  cease  to  desire  our  own  happi- 
ness. In  our  thoughts  and  feehngs  there  is  often  a  reference,  and 
it  may  be  a  just  and  impartial  reference,  to  our  own  welfare.  But 
the  nature  of  the  mind,  if  sanctified,  does  not  either  require  or 
admit,  that  this  should  always  be  the  case  ;  inasmuch  as  our  own 
welfare  cannot  be  always  present  to  our  thoughts.  But  if  you 
say,  that  whenever  a  holy  being  thinks  of  his  OAvn  happiness,  he 
will  and  must  have  a  suitable  regard  to  it ;  this  is  admitted. 
His  very  nature  as  an  intelligent  and  sensitive  being,  must  lead 
him  to  desire  his  own  happiness.     And  his  holiness  will  lead  him 

6* 


66  NATURE    OF    HOLINESS. 

to  desire  it  justlj.  Nor  is  there  any  danger  of  his  setting  an 
excessive  or  disproportionate  value  upon  his  own  true,  spiritual  and 
eternal  happiness  ?  The  general  fault  of  mankind  is  that  they  do 
not  desire  their  own  real  good,  do  not  seek  their  own  salvation,  as 
they  on  gilt.  The  thoughtless  and  impenitent  do  not  desire  and 
seek  it  at  all.  But  if  while  we  earnestly  desire  and  seek  our  own 
real  good,  we  have  a  heart  sincerely  to  desire  and  seek  the  good 
of  others  ;  this  is  Christian  virtue.  This  is  obedience  to  the  divine 
precept,  "  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  Love  thy- 
self with  a  just  and  holy  love  ;  and  love  thy  neighbor  in  like  man- 
ner. Let  thy  love  to  thyself,  if  that  love  is  right,  be  the  pattern 
of  thy  love  to  others. 

It  is  hoM'ever  manifest,  that  the  command  to  love  our  fellow 
creatures  as  ourselves  does  by  no  means  require,  that  we  should 
give  the  same  degree  of  attention  to  their  interests,  temporal  or 
eternal,  as  to  our  own.  By  the  ordering  of  God's  providence,  as 
well  as  by  the  authority  of  his  word,  our  own  interests  are  com- 
mitted specially  to  our  care  ;  not  because  they  are  in  reality  more 
important,  or  should  be  regarded  by  us  as  more  important,  than 
the  interests  of  others ;  but  because,  in  this  way,  both  our  own 
interests,  and  those  of  others,  can  be  best  promoted.  With  our 
limited  capacities,  we  can  give  attention  to  only  a  few  things  at 
the  same  time,  and  can  never  ^ive  attention  to  more  than  a  very 
small  part  of  the  interests  of  the  intelligent  creation.  And  if, 
because  we  love  our  fellow  creatures  as  ourselves,  we  should  un- 
dertake to  bestow  the  same  care  and  labor  upon  their  concerns,  as 
upon  our  own,  we  should  fail  in  regard  to  both,  and  should  really 
be  guilty  of  an  officious  and  unlawful  meddling  with  what  be- 
longs appropriately  to  others.  Neither  the  divine  law  nor  divine 
providence  involves  us  in  any  such  mistake  or  difficulty  as  this. 
The  law  does  indeed  require  a  cordial,  impartial,  and  enlarged 
affection  to  our  fellow  men,  and  persevering  endeavors  to  do  them 
good.  But  the  same  law  requires  us,  first  of  all,  to  look  well  to 
our  own  souls  and  to  take  care  of  our  own  welfare,  —  to  repent, 
to  believe  and  obey  for  ourselves,  —  a  work  which  no  one  can  do 
for  us.     And  here  we  see  the  wisdom,  the  harmony,  the  goodness 


NATURE    OF    HOLINESS.  OT 

of  the  divine  economy.  For  it  is  clear  that  this  special  attention 
to  our  own  welfare  will  contribute  most  to  the  amount  of  that  gen- 
eral welfare  which  we  are  required  to  seek,  and  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  divine  benevolence  to  secure.  We  thus  arrive  at 
the  pleasing  conclusion,  that  the  most  expansive  general  benevo- 
lence not  only  consists  with  private,  individual  good,  but  certainly 
promotes  it ;  and  that  it  not  only  consists  with  our  private,  indi- 
vidual duties,  but  directly  and  certainly  leads  us  to  discharge  them 
with  the  utmost  diUgence  and  fidelity. 


LECTURE  XCII. 


THE  NATURE  OF  REPENTANCE.   IMPORTANCE  OP  THE  DUTY. 

That  moral  excellence  or  holiness,  which  results  from  the  reno- 
vating influence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart,  and  which  we  have 
dwelt  upon  in  previous  Lectures,  is  one  simple  principle.  It  has 
a  real,  spiritual  unity.  But  it  is  developed  in  all  the  particular 
virtues  and  graces  of  the  Christian  character.  These  are  all 
branches  of  holiness.  How  multiplied  soever  they  may  be,  and 
how  plainly  soever  they  may  be  distinguishable  from  each  other, 
they  all  have  the  same  nature  ;  they  come  from  the  same  source ; 
and  they  are  only  the  proper  development  of  the  same  general 
principle,  the  same  right  affection  in  the  renewed  heart. 

It  might  be  well  for  us  to  go  into  a  full  consideration  of  each 
of  these  branches  of  Christian  virtue.  But  we  shall  confine  our 
attention  particularly  to  two  principal  ones,  namely,  repentance 
and  faith. 

In  the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures,  the  two  Greek  words, 
(iBiavoso)  and  [isTafie'vofiat,  are  both  translated,  to  repent. 
But  it  is  evident,  as  Dr.  Campbell  and  others  have  shown, 
that  these  words,  in  their  current  use  in  the  New  Testament, 
have  very  different  senses.  The  first  signifies  a  change  of  niindf 
a  change  of  one's  views,  affections  and  conduct  in  regard  to  the 
things  of  religion.  It  denotes  a  turning  from  sin  to  holiness.  In 
Acts  8:  22,  this  idea  of  turning  from  sin  seems  in  the  original  to 
be  directly  indicated.  "  Repent  of  this  thy  wickedness,"  cwro, 
literally,  from  this  thy  wickedness,  that  is,  penitently  turn  from 


REPENTANCE.  69 

it.  This  I  apprehend  to  be  the  real  import  of  the  word,  fiftavotm, 
whenever  it  is  used  to  point  out  the  duty  required  of  the  sinner. 
And  so  it  denotes  the  same  as  is  denoted  in  the  various  passages, 
which  speak  of  sinners  as  turning  from  their  wicked  ways,  ceasing 
to  do  evil  and  learning  to  do  well,  etc. 

The  other  word,  {letafiiXo^ai^  generally  denotes  an  anxious^ 
painful  feeling,  ivliich  arises  in  the  mitid  in  view  of  transgression 
—  a  distressing  sense  of  guilt  —  the  acting  of  conscience  re- 
proaching the  sinner  for  having  committed  wickedness,  and  point- 
ing him  to  a  future  retribution.  It  is  the  feeling  of  remorse;  and 
it  was  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  case  of  Judas,  who  repented 
of  his  treachery,  that  is,  had  a  painful  sense  of  remorse,  and  then, 
instead  of  turning  from  his  ungrateful  and  wicked  conduct,  filled 
up  the  measure  of  his  guilt  by  committing  the  heinous  sin  of  self- 
murder. 

One  who  has  true,  saving  repentance,  sees  the  evil  of  sin  — 
sees  it  truly,  though  not  perfectly.  He  has  not  a  clear  view  of 
every  sin  which  he  has  committed,  nor  of  all  the  evil  which  be- 
longs to  any  one  sin.  But  his  eyes  are  opened,  at  least  opening ; 
and  he  beholds,  or  rather  begins  to  behold,  the  hatefulness  and 
malignity  of  sin.  In  his  view,  sin  is,  as  the  Apostle  expresses  it, 
exceedingly  sinful,  and  deserves  to  be  abhorred  by  all  rational 
beings.  His  eye  is  chiefly  fixed,  not  upon  the  punishment  of  sin, 
dreadful  as  he  considers  it  to  be,  but  upon  its  own  vile  and  odious 
nature.  If  at  any  time  he  does  not  think  of  the  punishment 
threatened,  or  if  he  hopes  to  be  saved  from  it,  he  still  sees  sin  to 
be  altogether  criminal  and  vile,  hateful  and  ill-deserving  ;  and  all 
its  criminahty  and  vileness  and  hatefulness  and  ill-desert  he  as- 
cribes to  himself.  It  is  he  that  is  the  criminal.  He  is  convinced 
that  there  is  nothing  on  earth  or  in  hell  worse  than  to  he  a  sinner. 
Instead  of  excusing  himself,  or  in  any  way  palliating  his  guilt,  he 
is  ashamed  and  confounded  before  God,  and  abhors  himself,  say- 
ing, with  Job,  "  behold  I  am  vile." 

Without  a  conviction  of  the  real,  intrinsic  evil  of  sin,  no  one 
truly  repents.  A  person  will  hardly  give  up  and  avoid  that  which 
is  desirable  and  lovely  in  his  view.     Or  if  for  any  reason  he  gives 


70  REPENTANCE. 

it  up  in  his  visible  conduct,  he  will  not  give  it  up  in  the  affections 
of  his  heart ;  and  his  giving  it  up  visibly  will  be  contrary  to  his 
inclinations,  and  from  an  unwelcome  necessity.  His  cbange  is 
external,  and  reaches  not  the  predominant  state  of  his  mind. 

The  penitent  sinner  has  some  true  knowledge  of  God.  His 
repentance  is  "  repentance  totvardn  God."  His  relation  to  God 
is  far  more  important  than  any  of  the  relations  he  sustains  to  other 
beings.  And  he  can  never  adequately  conceive  how  inexcusa- 
ble and  ill-deserving  he  is,  unless  he  considers  himself  as  standing 
in  this  highest  of  all  relations.  He  who  repents,  sees  God  to  be 
infinitely  excellent ;  and  the  idea  of  his  having  sinned  against  so 
good  and  so  glorious  a  Being  does  at  times  so  engross  his  atten- 
tion, that  he  can  scarcely  think  of  anything  else  ;  and  he  says, 
with  penitent  David,  "  Against  thee,  thee  only  have  I  sinned,  and 
done  evil  in  thy  sight."  And  it  is  this  view  of  his  sins,  not  ex- 
clusively of  other  views,  but  more  than  any  other,  which  lays  him 
low  in  self-abasement,  and  produces  a  conviction  in  his  inmost 
soul,  that  his  condemnation  would  be  just.  Now  this  state  of 
mind  directly  involves  what  is  appropriately  called  repentance^ 
that  is,  turning  from  sin.  For  how  can  a  man  continue  to  sin 
against  a  Being  who  in  his  view  possesses  infinite  goodness  as  well 
as  infinite  power,  —  who  is  altogether  lovely,  and  whom  he  has 
already  begun  to  love  with  all  his  heart  ?  As  he  entertains  some 
right  apprehensions  of  the  glorious  character  of  God,  he  is  of 
course  sensible  of  the  reasonableness  and  goodness  of  the  moral 
law.  For  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the  justice  or 
equity  of  the  law  which  calls  for  the  supreme  love  of  rational 
creatures,  depends  primarily  on  the  character  of  him  who  is  set 
before  them  as  the  object  of  love.  If  then  God  is  such  a  Being, 
as  the  Scriptures  represent  him  to  be,  he  is  worthy  of  all  the  love, 
the  worship  and  the  obedience  which  his  law  demands.  Hence 
follows  the  great  evil  of  transgression,  and  the  justice  of  the  pun- 
ishment threatened.  We  are  by  no  means  able  to  comprehend 
the  whole  demerit  of  sin  ;  but  if  we  have  the  Holy  Spirit  to  en- 
lighten and  sanctify  us,  we  shall  trembhngly  and  submissively  ac- 
knowledge, that  God  is  righteous  both  in  giving  the  law  and  in 


REPENTANCE.  71 

executing  its  penalty.  No  complaint  of  the  undue  severity  of  that 
penalty  will  come  from  our  lips,  or  arise  in  our  hearts.  We  shall 
have  a  conviction,  which  will  not  be  so  much  a  matter  of  reason- 
ing, as  of  a  direct,  spiritual  discernment,  that  the  punishment 
which  God  has  appointed,  is  no  more  than  commensurate  with  the 
evil  of  sin,  and  no  more  than  the  principles  of  a  perfect  moral 
government  render  necessary.  And  so  our  mouth  will  be  stopped, 
and  we  shall  no  more  reply  against  God. 

Without  some  conviction  of  this  kind,  there  can  be  no  real  re- 
pentance. If  any  one  really  thinks  that  the  law  requires  too 
much,  or  that  its  penalty  is  too  severe,  he  sides  with  rebels ;  and 
whatever  he  may  do  in  the  way  of  outward  reform,  he  does  it 
with  a  heart  of  enmity.  Enmity  against  God  may  admit  of  the 
sinner's  doing  many  seemingly  good  actions  for  the  sake  of  es- 
caping misery,  but  it  will  not  admit  of  his  truly  turning  from  sin. 
Enmitv  is  itself  sin  —  sin  in  its  worst  form  ;  and  all  other  sins 
are  enfolded  in  its  bosom.  He  then,  who  retains  a  heart  of  en- 
mity, retains  sin  unsubdued  and  enthroned. 

The  repenting  sinner  sees  the  beauty  of  holiness  and  is  attract- 
ed by  it.  He  turns  to  holiness  because  he  loves  it.  I  might  say, 
loving  holiness  is  itself  turning  to  holiness.  For  turning  to  holi- 
ness is  a  work  of  the  heart.  And  how  can  the  heart  turn  to  an 
object  except  by  loving  it  ?  And  we  know  that  a  man  never  truly 
loves  anything  unless  it  has  loveliness  and  beauty  in  his  eyes. 
Some  real  perception  of  the  beauty  of  holiness  is  involved  in  all 
true  conviction  of  the  evil  of  sin.  For  the  same  spiritual  eye 
which  sees  the  deformity  and  hatefulness  of  sin,  sees  the  beauty 
and  excellence  of  holiness ;  and  the  same  heart  which  hates  sin, 
loves  holiness.  The  two  things  are  only  the  acting  out  of  the 
same  disposition  in  two  directions. 

Again,  I  remark,  that  although  the  original  word,  [iSTdvoia, 
rendered  repentance,  does  not  directly  indicate  sorrow,  still  sor- 
row must  be  considered  either  as  involved  in  the  nature  of  re- 
pentance, or  as  a  circumstance  uniformly  attendant  upon  it. 
Some  have  entertained  the  strange  opinion,  that  a  good  man 
should  not  be  sorry  for  sin,  because  God  will  overrule  it  for  good. 


72  REPENTANCE. 

But  this  is  a  speculation  which  is  totally  contrary  to  reason,  ex- 
perience, and  the  word  of  God.  How  often  do  the  Scriptures 
call  upon  men  to  mourn  and  weep  for  their  sins  !  And  how  futile 
is  every  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  plain  import  of  the  texts  which 
relate  to  the  subject.  On  the  principle  which  I  oppose,  David 
was  very  faulty,  because  he  was  so  grieved  for  his  own  sins,  and 
because  rivers  of  water  ran  down  his  eyes  on  account  of  the  sins 
of  others.  And  if  we  should  not  mourn  and  weep  on  account  of 
our  sins,  because  they  will  be  overruled  for  the  glory  of  God  ;  for 
the  same  reason  we  should  not  mourn  and  weep  on  account  of  any 
calamity  or  suffering  which  may  befal  us  or  our  fellow-creatures, 
and  should  strive  to  acquire  an  utter  insensibility  and  callousness 
of  feeling.  And  then  the  question  arises,  why  Jesus  directed  the 
women  who  followed  him  on  his  way  to  Calvary  weeping,  to  weep 
not  for  him,  but  for  themselves  and  their  children,  on  account  of 
the  evils  Avhich  were  soon  to  overwhelm  them,  —  inasmuch  as  those 
evils  would  be  to  the  glory  of  a  just  and  holy  God  ?  And  why 
did  Jesus  weep  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ?  You  say,  he  wept  from 
sympathy  with  his  weeping  friends.  But  why  did  he  sympathize 
with  them  ?  Why  did  he  not  rather  reprove  them  for  the  sorrow 
they  felt,  and  tell  them  that  their  mourning  was  all  wrong,  inas- 
much as  the  event  which  had  taken  place  would  be  overruled  for 
the  glory  of  God  ?  And  why  did  the  Prophet  speak  of  it  as  a 
prominent  effect  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  house 
of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  that  they  should  look 
on  him  whom  they  had  pierced,  and  mourn  for  him  as  one  mourn- 
eth  for  an  only  son,  and  be  in  bitterness  for  him  as  one  is  in  bitter- 
ness for  his  first  bom  ?  This  is  the  case  now  with  all  penitent 
sinners.  But  why  this  bitterness  of  sorrow,  when  their  sin  against 
the  blessed  Saviour  would,  by  the  almighty  providence  of  God,  be 
made  the  occasion  of  good  ?  The  opinion  now  before  us,  if  car- 
ried out  in  practice,  would  end  in  the  most  unfeeling  stoicism. 

Under  the  influence  of  pure  Christianity,  the  heart  becomes 
soft  and  tender,  and  men  have  godly  sorrow  for  their  sins  in  pro- 
portion to  their  piety,  —  their  sorrow  being  at  the  same  time  the 
means  of  increasing  their  piety.     The  Apostle  does  not  say  that 


REPENTANCE.  T^ 

godly  sorrow  is  repentance,  but  that  it  worketh  repentance.  Sor- 
row for  sin  promotes  repentance,  that  is,  a  more  complete  turning 
from  sin,  and  greater  watchfulness  against  it.  If  children  have  a 
dutiful  temper,  they  will,  on  reflection,  be  heartily  sorry  for  their 
disobedience  to  their  father,  and  their  sorrow  will  operate  as  a 
safeguard  against  a  repetition  of  the  offence. 

Do  not  those  who  advocate  the  notion  which  I  have  endeavored 
to  confute,  overlook  a  very  plain  and  important  distinction  ?  Sin 
belongs  to  man.  He  who  commits  it,  transgresses  a  perfect  law, 
and  abuses  the  goodness  of  the  Lawgiver.  What  he  does  is  to- 
tally wrong.  His  motive  is  wrong.  The  natural  tendency  of  his 
conduct  is  wrong.  Sin,  whether  existing  in  the  heart,  or  in  out- 
ward act,  has  no  mixture  of  good.  If  the  sinner  comes  to  a  right 
mind,  he  views  the  subject  in  this  light.  He  condemns  what  he 
has  done,  and  himself  as  the  doer.  He  is  heartily  grieved  and 
sorry,  that  he  has  abused  infinite  goodness  —  that  he  has  dishon- 
ored him  who  deserves  everlasting  honor  and  praise  —  that  he  has 
treated  his  divine  Friend  and  Benefactor  with  ingratitude.  He 
calls  to  mind  the  multitude  of  his  transgressions  with  their  various 
aggravations,  and  his  heart  becomes  broken  and  contrite.  He 
mourns  for  the  evil  he  has  done,  and  resolves  to  sin  no  more.  But 
while  he  thus  condemns  sin  and  mourns  for  it,  he  views  the  gov- 
ernment of  God  with  approbation  and  delight.  It  gives  him  joy 
that  the  evil  which  he  and  others  have  done,  or  attempted  to  do, 
will  be  overruled  for  the  glory  of  God  —  that  his  inexcusable 
wickedness  will  be  made  the  occasion  of  good.  These  two  things 
are  plainly  and  entirely  distinct  from  each  other ;  and  the  en- 
lightened penitent  so  regards  them,  and  has  correspondent  feel- 
ings. He  disapproves  and  abhors  the  evil  which  he  has  done, 
but  approves  and  loves  what  God  does.  He  has  sorrow  for  the 
evil,  and  joy  for  the  good.  He  grieves  bitterly  that  he  has  acted 
80  basely  as  to  sin  against  God.  But  he  is  glad  that  God  is  over 
all,  and  will  glorify  himself  and  do  good  to  his  holy  kingdom  by 
means  of  that  which  is,  in  itself,  so  great  an  evil.  To  sum  up 
the  whole  in  few  words,  the  penitent  looks  upon  sin  with  abhoi> 
rence  and  grief,  but  upon  the  holy  agency  of  God  with  acquies- 

VOL. in.  7 


74  REPENTANCE. 

cence  and  joy.  And  he  never  regards  sin  as  a  less  evil,  or  as 
less  a  reason  for  godly  sorrow,  because  God  will  overrule  it  for 
good ;  nor  does  he,  on  the  other  hand,  feel  less  joy  in  the  good, 
because  God,  in  liis  sovereign  providence,  accomplishes  it  by  means 
of  evil. 

It  will  be  easy  for  a  man,  whose  habits  of  thinking  are  derived 
from  the  Scriptures,  to  keep  his  mind  free  from  all  puzzling  specu- 
lations on  this  subject  by  adverting  to  the  distinction  above  sug- 
gested, regarding  the  evil  of  sin  on  the  one  side,  and  the  holy 
providence  of  God  on  the  other,  as  the}^  are  in  their  own  nature. 
If  his  renewed  heart  acts  itself  out  naturally  and  freely  towards 
these  different  objects,  all  will  be  right. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  what  are  the  principal  attri- 
butes and  circumstances  of  repentance.  But  it  must  be  kept  in 
mind,  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  holy  principle,  manifesting  itself 
in  different  ways,  according  to  the  different  objects  which  are  con- 
templated. And  it  is  important  to  remark,  that  the  change  which 
constitutes  repentance,  is  a  gradual  change.  It  has  a  beginning 
a  progress,  and  a  completion.  The  change  in  its  own  nature,  ap- 
pertains to  all  moral  objects  and  relations.  But  clearly  to  develop 
itself  in  regard  to  all,  is  a  work  of  time.  A  penitent  immediately 
begins  to  forsake  his  evil  ways.  Whatever  wrong  practice  he 
particularly  considers,  he  begins  to  put  away,  and  whatever  duty 
comes  clearly  before  his  mind,  he  begins  to  perform.  But  the 
work  is  not  suddenly  brought  to  perfection.  From  tjme  to  time 
the  penitent  has  new  views  of  God  and  his  law,  of  himself  and  his 
fellow  creatures.  These  objects  do  in  fact  continue  to  present 
themselves  before  him  under  new  aspects,  and  with  additional 
degrees  of  clearness,  and  his  affections,  his  purposes,  and  his  con- 
duct are  brought  under  a  corresponding  influence.  He  abandons 
one  sinful  practice  and  subdues  one  sinful  disposition  after  another, 
and  does  it  more  and  more  decidedly.  With  God's  holy  and 
spiritual  law  in  view,  he  from  time  to  time  discovers  evils  in  his 
heart  and  hfe,  which  before  lay  concealed,  and  modes  of  holy  and 
benevolent  action  not  before  noticed ;  in  consequence  of  which, 
he  makes  further  advances  in  the  work  of  repentance.     For  the 


REPENTANCE.  W 

most  part,  the  repenting  sinner  begins  his  new  life  feebly,  and 
with  many  defects.  And  he  is  afterwards  subject  to  backsliding, 
and  may  go  forward  in  his  journey  to  heaven  very  slowly.  In 
every  period  of  his  spiritual  life,  his  repentance  is  imperfect. 
While  it  is  the  case  that  a  great  part  of  his  thoughts,  desires  and 
purposes  fail  of  being  conformed  to  the  divine  law,  and  while  a 
great  part  of  his  actions,  though  in  man's  view  unexceptionable, 
are  performed  from  selfish  motives,  it  is  clear  that  he  has  made 
but  little  progress  in  the  real  business  of  repentance.  And  it  is  a 
matter  of  astonishment,  that  so  many  persons,  who  have  been 
repenting  for  years,  have  still  but  just  begun  the  work ;  that  after 
they  have  been  changing  their  mind  so  long,  they  have  yet 
changed  so  little  ;  and  that  so  many  visible  faults  and  so  many 
inward,  spiritual  disorders  still  cleave  to  them.  Hence  it  appears, 
that  repentance  continues  to  be  the  duty  of  Christians  through  the 
whole  course  of  their  probation,  inasmuch  as  they  are,  at  every 
period  of  life,  more  or  less  subject  to  moral  evil.  They  have  real 
holiness,  but  not  complete  holiness.  They  have  begun  the  work 
of  repentance,  but  have  not  finished  it.  But  it  is  as  evidently 
their  duty  to  finish  the  work,  as  to  begin  it  —  to  turn  from  sin 
wholly,  as  to  turn  at  all.  Such  is  their  bounden  duty.  And  if 
after  they  have  known  the  blessedness  of  returning  to  God,  and 
have  tasted  the  joys  of  salvation,  they  do  in  any  respect  still  neg- 
lect the  duty  of  repentance,  and  continue  in  sin ;  what  sacred 
obligations  do  they  violate  !  Of  what  ingratitude  and  perverseness 
are  they  guilty  !  And  what  strange  insensibility  do  they  show  to 
the  attractions  of  infinite  beauty  and  goodness  !  The  sins  which 
remain  in  Christians,  and  which  occasion  a  continual  and  often 
painful  conflict  with  themselves,  and  which  require  the  daily 
exercise  of  repentance  even  to  the  end  of  their  life,  furnish  a 
stronger  proof  of  the  deep,  inbred  depravity  of  the  heart,  than 
any  sins  which  occur  in  an  unregenerate  state. 

The  duty  of  repentance,  being  so  reasonable  and  indispensable, 
and  being  so  frequently  and  solemnly  inculcated  by  prophets  and 
apostles,  and  by  Christ  himself,  ought  to  be  commenced  by  sin- 
ners without  delay,  and  to  be  continued  by  Christians  with  unceas- 


76  REPENTANCE. 

ing  earnestness,  throughout  this  state  of  trial.  The  command  of 
the  ascended  Saviour  to  his  imperfect,  backsliding  people,  is  — 
"  be  zealous  and  repent."  In  what  way  can  we  exercise  zeal  and 
resolution  so  justly  and  so  laudably,  as  in  the  work  of  ridding 
ourselves  of  the  abominable  thing  which  God  hates  —  the  work  of 
getting  cured  of  that  loathsome,  fatal  disease  which  has  seized 
upon  our  souls,  and  which  must  be  cured,  before  we  can  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  presence  of  Christ  in  heaven  ! 

I  have  said  that  Christians,  as  well  as  unsanctified  sinners, 
have  much  to  do  in  the  work  of  repentance.  And  such  is  the 
practical  importance  of  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  I  cannot 
close  without  attempting  to  impress  it  more  fully  upon  the  minds 
of  those  who  are  preparing  for  the  holy  office  of  the  ministry. 
As  the  office  with  which  you  are  to  be  invested  is  one  of  uncom- 
mon sanctity,  uncommon  purity  and  excellence  of  character  will 
be  justly  expected  of  you.  And  as  you  possess  the  same  fallen 
nature  with  others,  you  must  attain  to  the  requisite  excellence  by 
the  same  process,  that  is,  by  the  continual  exercise  of  repentance. 
This  duty  is  specially  incumbent  on  persons  in  your  cir- 
cumstances, because  sin,  existing  in  you,  must  evidently  be 
attended  with  fearful  aggravations.  Of  this  you  cannot  doubt, 
if  you  consider  in  what  sacred  studies  you  are  daily  employed, 
and  how  many  advantages  your  situation  affords  for  growth  in 
grace.  Happy  will  you  be,  if  you  may  have  a  just  and  adequate 
conviction  of  the  necessity  of  thorough  evangehcal  repentance, 
and  correspondent  resolution  and  perseverance  in  discharging  the 
momentous  duty.  It  is  a  duty  which  returns  upon  us  every  day, 
because  every  day  we  have  sin  dwelling  in  us  ;  and  so  it  will 
doubtless  be,  while  life  lasts.  This,  I  think,  must  be  the  clear 
conviction  of  every  Christian  who  faithfully  examines  himself,  and 
compares  his  heart  and  life  with  the  perfect  standard  of  holiness. 
And  he  must  consequently  feel,  that  he  is  continually  urged  by 
the  most  powerful  motives  to  the  humiliating,  but  indispensable 
work  of  repentance. 

Is  it  not,  then,  a  great  fault  of  Christians  generally,  and  may  it 
not  be  the  fault  of  many  theological  students  and  many  ministers 


REPENTANCE.  Tf 

of  the  gospel,  that  they  do  not,  with  suitable  diligence,  pursue  the 
work  of  repentance  ?  They  have  begun  it,  but  they  do  not  urge 
it  on  to  its  full  accomplishment  as  they  ought ;  and,  consequently, 
they  do  not  make  due  advances  in  the  divine  life,  and  are  so  far 
from  being  complete  in  all  the  will  of  God.  How  different  would 
it  now  be  with  us,  had  we,  from  the  moment  when,  as  we  trust, 
the  Spirit  of  God  first  visited  our  hearts,  diligently  prosecuted 
the  work  of  repentance  !  Let  us  be  diligent  in  the  work  for  the 
time  to  come,  making  it  a  part  of  our  daily  business,  as  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  If  we  find  pride  or  ambition,  envy  or  ill  will, 
covetousness  or  selfishness,  or  any  other  form  of  sinful  affection 
working  within  us,  we  see  here  what  is  to  be  done.  We  must 
forthwith  repent;  that  is,  we  must  put  away  the  sin,  whatever  it 
is,  and  vigilantly  guard  against  its  regaining  any  influence  over 
us.  We  must  be  resolute  in  this  indispensable  work,  and,  relying 
on  the  help  of  God,  must  never  give  it  over,  whatever  discourage- 
ments may  come  in  our  way.  How  often  soever  we  may  be  foiled 
or  driven  back,  we  have  no  cause  to  be  disheartened,  for  we 
follow  a  powerful  and  glorious  Leader,  who  has  conquered  sin  for 
us,  and  who  will  make  us  partakers  of  his  victory,  if  we  faithfully 
adhere  to  him.  We  have,  I  say,  no  cause  to  be  disheartened ; 
for  there  is  no  corrupt  disposition  so  confirmed  by  use,  no  law  of 
sin  in  our  minds  so  powerful,  that  it  cannot,  through  the  grace  of 
Christ,  be  effectually  overcome.  But,  in  order  to  our  success,  we 
must  pursue  the  work  unceasingly ;  just  as  the  Israelites  were 
commanded  unceasingly  to  fight  against  the  Canaanites  in  the 
land  of  promise,  till  they  were  utterly  destroyed.  Whenever  we 
enter  on  the  business  of  self-inquiry,  we  find  ourselves  guilty  of 
some  manifest  transgressions  of  the  law,  or  some  neglects  of  duty. 
Here  is  the  place  where  repentance  should  come  in.  We  should 
immediately  reform  what  is  amiss  ;  Should  make  haste  and  delay 
not  to  keep  God's  commandments.  When  we  appear  in  the  house 
of  God,  when  we  read  his  word,  and  call  upon  his  name,  and 
when  we  engage  in  the  duties  of  our  calling  —  yes,  everywhere 
and  continually,  we  should  have  a  penitent  heart  and  a  contrite 
spirit.     Nothing  should  be  suffered  to  turn  us  aside  from  this  all- 

7* 


78  REPENTANCE. 

important  work.  It  would  be  far  better  for  us  to  neglect  our 
bodily  health,  or  our  intellectual  improvement  —  better  to  forego 
any  worldly  profit  or  pleasure,  than  to  neglect  the  work  of  putting 
away  the  evil  that  dwells  in  us  and  curing  the  diseases  of  our 
souls.  This  work  is  of  the  highest  moment.  The  Lord  Jesus, 
after  he  ascended  on  high,  stooped  down  from  his  throne  in  the 
heavens  to  say  to  his  imperfect,  erring  followei'S  —  "Be  zealous, 
and  repent."  Here  is  an  exercise  of  zeal  which,  though  incom- 
parably important,  is  little  thought  of.  We  manifest  zeal  in  our 
worldly  pursuits  ;  but  where  is  our  zeal  in  our  pursuit  of  holiness, 
in  correcting  what  is  amiss,  and  in  amending  our  character  as 
Christians  ?  And  yet  we  must  have  zeal  and  earnestness,  or  the 
work  will  not  be  done.  Did  we  but  attend  rightly  to  this  high 
command  of  our  Lord,  "  Be  zealous  and  repent,"  looking  to  him 
for  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need,  we  should  no  longer  be  found 
retrograde  or  stationary  in  our  spiritual  course.  We  should  no 
longer  show,  at  the  end  of  the  month  or  year,  the  same  faults  and 
blemishes  as  at  the  beginning  — r-  the  same  faults  unchecked, 
undiminished,  and  sometimes  even  growing  upon  us.  Instead  of 
this,  we  should  be  constantly  making  advancement  in  godliness. 
Forgetting  the  things  behind,  we  should  press  on  towards  perfec- 
tion. Noxious  weeds,  now  growing  in  our  garden,  would  be 
plucked  up,  and  useful  vegetables  would  flourish  in  their  place. 
Plants,  formerly  neglected,  would  be  cultivated  ;  and  trees,  once 
barren,  would  bear  fruit.  And  why  is  it  that  we  are  not  in  this 
happy  state  ?  Why  have  we  made  so  little  progress  ?  Why  this 
want  of  growth  and  fruitfulness  ?  Why  have  we  so  little  confor- 
mity to  Christ,  and  why  do  our  prayers  obtain  so  small  a  measure 
of  spiritual  good  for  ourselves  and  for  others  ?  It  will  be  easy 
for  us  to  account  for  these  evils,  if  we  consider  how  little  we  have 
done  in  the  momentous  duty  of  repentance. 


LECTURE     XCIII. 


FAITH.  WHY  NOT  MORE  CLEARLY  UNDERSTOOD  ?  FAITH  IN  A 
GENERAL  SENSE.  WHAT  IS  FAITH  IN  CHRIST?  ENJOINED  AS 
THE   DUTY    OP  ALL   SINNERS. 

Although  the  langxiage  of  Scripture  respecting  faith  seems  to 
be  very  intelligible,  there  are  few  subjects  on  which  more  obscure 
and  erroneous  opinions  have  been  entertained.  This  deplorable 
fact  results  from  various  causes. 

1.  The  objects  of  faith  are  remote  from  the  province  of  the 
senses.  Our  attention,  from  the  beginning  of  life,  is  directed  to 
the  present  world.  We  look  at  the  things  which  are  seen. 
Those,  therefore,  who  would  get  right  views  of  faith,  are  under 
the  necessity  of  casting  off  the  dominion  of  their  early  habits ; 
of  breaking  away  from  the  enchantments  of  sense,  and  turning 
the  current  of  their  thoughts  and  feelings  into  a  new  channel. 
All  experience  shows  this  to  be  a  work  of  difficult  accomplish- 
ment. 

2.  Another  thing  which  renders  it  difficult  to  obtain  clear  and 
satisfactory  views  of  faith,  is,  that  the  language  which  describes  it 
has  been  so  often  spoken  and  heard  without  correspondent  concep- 
tions or  feelings.  This  custom  of  speaking  and  hearing  the 
words  of  divine  truth,  without  the  conceptions  which  those  words 
ought  to  kindle  within  us,  creates  a  new  difficulty.  For  when- 
ever those  words  are  repeated,  the  mind  is  apt  to  lie  in  the  same 
listless  state  as  before.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  feel  a  lively  inte- 
rest in  a  subject  which  has  often  passed  before  us  without  exciting 
our  attention. 


80  FAITH. 

3.  Such  is  the  nature  of  faith,  that  it  cannot  he  rightly  appre- 
hended, without  being  experienced  and  felt.  Christian  faith, 
instead  of  consisting  chiefly  in  a  speculative  discernment  of 
external  objects,  is,  in  a  great  measure,  a  matter  of  aflfection. 
But  how  can  an  affection  be  known,  except  by  those  who  have 
been  the  subjects  of  it  ?  And  as  to  believers  themselves,  —  faith 
exists  in  them  in  so  low  a  degree,  that  they  are  by  no  means  free 
from  the  same  difficulty.  For  how  can  they  form  adequate  con- 
ceptions of  that  which  operates  in  their  own  minds  so  feebly  and 
80  inconstantly  ? 

4.  Right  apprehensions  of  faith  are  prevented,  by  the  preva- 
lence of  corrupt  dispositions  in  the  heart.  These  dispositions 
render  us  blind  to  spiritual,  holy  objects.  They  not  only 
prevent  us  from  exercising  faith,  but  make  us  unwilling  to  per- 
ceive what  it  is,  because  such  perception  would  lead  to  self- 
reproach  and  self-condemnation.  In  this,  as  in  other  cases, 
"  the  natural  man  discerneth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit ;  for 
they  are  foolishness  to  him  ;  neither  can  he  know  them  ;  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned."  And,  so  far  as  sinful  affections 
prevail  in  Christians,  they  hinder  spiritual  discernment  as  really  as 
in  the  unrenewed. 

Such  considerations  as  these  may  help  us  to  account  for  the 
obscure  and  erroneous  views  which  are  commonly  entertained  of 
the  nature  of  faith,  and  for  the  difficulty  of  making  it  well  un- 
derstood. 

There  is  no  part  of  the  holy  Scriptures  which  so  particularly 
illustrates  the  nature  and  influence  of  faith,  as  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  writer  begins  with  a 
brief  description  of  faith.  "  Now  faith  is  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  'Tnoaraaig  literally 
signifies  what  stands  under,  as  a  basis  or  support.  It  is  here 
used  metaphorically,  and  signifies  firm  trust,  or  confidence,  on 
which  the  mind  rests,  and  which  gives  to  spiritual,  invisible  objects 
a  substance  and  reality,  as  though  they  were  present.  Faith  is 
also  the  "  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  Its  objects  have  not 
the  evidence  of  sense.     But  they  have  an  evidence  of  another 


FAITH.  81 

and  higher  kind.  "EXsyx'^S,  rendered  evidence,  seems  here  to 
denote  the  effect  of  evidence,  or  demonstration.  The  word  of 
God,  who  cannot  he,  produces  in  the  mind  of  the  believer  a  per- 
fect persuasion  of  the  truth  and  certainty  of  those  invisible 
things  which  are  revealed  in  Scripture.  Through  the  teaching  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Christian  has  within  himself  satisfactory  evi- 
dence, a  demonstration,  of  the  reality  and  importance  of  things 
not  seen.  All  doubt  is  removed  from  his  mind,  and  he  knows 
that  whatever  God  has  declared  is  true,  and  that  whatever  he  has 
promised  Avill  be  accomplished. 

The  faith  of  which  the  sacred  writer  here  speaks,  respects  not 
only  the  future  good  which  God  has  promised,  and  the  future  evil 
he  has  threatened,  but  all  other  invisible  things  which  he  has 
made  known  to  us.  The  very  first  instance  of  faith  which  the 
writer  mentions,  relates  to  past  events.  "  Through  faith  we 
understand  that  the  worlds  were  made,  hy  the  word  of  G-ody  We 
are  convinced  and  satisfied  that  the  worlds  were  thus  made,  because 
God  has  so  informed  us. 

The  ultimate  foundation  of  faith  is  the  absolute  perfection  of 
God.  A  Being  who  is  infinitely  intelligent,  and  holy,  and  good, 
cannot  deceive.  Whatever  he  declares  must  be  true.  In  the 
exercise  of  faith  we  fix  our  thoughts  upon  such  a  Being,  and  have 
confidence  in  the  truth  of  all  his  communications  to  us.  In  this 
general  view,  faith  relates  as  obviously  to  the  manifestations  which 
God  makes  in  his  works,  as  to  the  declarations  of  his  word.  We 
believe  those  manifestations  to  be  in  perfect  agreement  with  the 
truth.  If  the  heavens  and  the  earth  declare  that  God  is  glorious, 
we  have  confidence  that  he  is  so.  If  his  dispensation  towards  us 
manifest  goodness,  we  believe  that  he  is  good.  We  have  a  fidl 
persuasion,  that  a  Being  possessed  of  infinite  moral  excellence  will 
no  more  deceive  us  by  the  visible  operations  of  his  hand,  or  by  the 
characters  which  he  inscribes  on  his  works,  than  by  the  words 
which  he  speaks. 

See  here  how  sure  is  the  ultimate  ground  of  our  faith.  We  can- 
not have  entire  confidence  in  the  opinion  or  the  testimony  oi man; 
because  man  may  be  mistaken,  or  may  deceive.     Nor  can  we 


82  FAITH. 

have  entire  confidence  in  the  deductions  of  human  reason ;  be- 
cause those  deductions  may  be  fallacious.  But  the  word  of  the 
Lord  is  infallible  truth,  and  so  is  the  foundation  of  the  most  certain 
belief. 

In  whatever  way  the  word  or  declaration  of  God  is  conveyed 
to  us,  our  faith  in  it  rests  ultimately  upon  his  moral  perfection, 
particularly  his  veracity.  This  would  evidently  be  the  case,  if  we 
ourselves  should  hear  the  divine  declaration.  And  why  is  it  not 
so  when  the  declaration  comes  to  us  through  the  credible  testi- 
mony of  others  ?  For  example  :  we  are  informed  by  those  who 
are  entitled  to  full  credit,  that  God  uttered  a  voice  from  heaven, 
saying,  TJiis  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  We 
have  confidence  in  the  truth  of  this  declaration,  because  we  are 
satisfied,  from  the  testimony  of  faithful  witnesses,  that  it  came 
from  God  ;  and  as  it  came  from  God,  we  are  certain  it  is  true. 
But  this  is  not  the  case  with  any  declaration  which  rests  ulti- 
mately on  the  authority  of  man.  Let  a  doctrine  be  taught  by 
Plato  or  Newton.  The  doctrine  comes  from  a  man  —  a  man  not 
divinely  inspired  —  a  man,  not  God.  How  do  we  treat  such  a 
doctrine  ?  Instead  of  beheving  it  on  the  mere  authority  of  Plato 
or  Newton,  we  say,  perhaps  he  was  mistaken  ;  and  we  go  about  to 
inquire  whether  the  doctrine  is  true  or  not.  We  examine  it ;  and 
we  receive  it  or  reject  it  according  as  we  find  the  evidence  for  it 
or  against  it  preponderates.  But  if  we  are  satisfied  that  God  de- 
clares any  doctrine,  we  beheve  it  on  the  ground  of  his  authority, 
although  there  is  no  other  evidence  of  its  truth. 

As  the  word  of  God  is  the  ultimate  ground  of  religious  faith  ; 
so  it  is  the  rule  or  measure  of  faith.  If  our  faith  diifers  from  the 
word  of  God,  we  depart  from  the  rule,  and  our  faith  is  erroneous. 
If  we  believe  less  than  what  God  reveals,  our  faith  is  defective ; 
if  more,  it  has  a  faulty  redundance.  If  we  would  have  our  faith 
right,  we  must  conform  exactly  to  the  word  of  God,  taking  care, 
first,  to  understand  the  rule  correctly,  that  our  faith  may  not  bend 
to  one  side,  or  the  other ;  secondly,  to  understand  it  fully,  that 
our  faith  may  not  fall  short ;  thirdly,  to  restrain  the  aspirings  of 
reason,  and  the  surmises  of  curiosity,  and  to  be  entirely  content 
with  the  rule,  so  that  our  faith  may  not  overleap  its  bounds. 


FAITH.  88 

It  is  of  material  importance  to  observe,  that  saving  faith  im- 
plies cordial  affectmi,  or  a  state  of  the  heart  correspondent  with 
its  objects.  The  Scriptures  generally  point  out  the  external  act 
or  the  act  of  the  understanding  which  is  required,  and  that  only, 
upon  the  reasonable  assumption,  that  such  act  is  always  to  be  at- 
tended with  suitable  feelings.  Those  Avho  are  possessed  of  an 
intelligent,  moral  nature,  must  understand  that  right  moral  affec- 
tion is  to  accompany  every  outward  act  required,  and  that,  with- 
out such  affection,  no  outward  act  can  be  acceptable  to  him  who 
looketh  on  the  heart.  When  therefore  he  requires  the  action,  he 
virtually  requires  a  corresponding  state  of  the  heart.  God  re- 
quires us  to  call  upon  his  name.  This,  taken  by  itself,  is  merely 
an  outward  act.  But  in  reality  this  outward  act  is  required  as  an 
expression  of  the  heart  —  the  heart  being  understood  not  only  to 
agree  with  the  words  uttered  by  the  voice,  but  to  prompt  them. 
In  like  manner,  when  the  Evangelist  gives  an  account  of  the 
great  faith  of  the  Centurion,  he  simply  relates  his  words,  and  vis- 
ible actions.  But  every  one  understands  that  those  words  and 
actions  were  indicative  of  correspondent  feelings.  Unless  under- 
stood in  this  manner,  the  narrative  amounts  to  nothing. 

This  principle  is  applicable  to  every  thing  which  is  a  matter  of 
obligation  ;  to  every  thing  which  relates  to  man  as  a  moral  agent. 
In  every  such  case,  the  performance  of  the  duty  required  includes 
the  action  of  the  whole  moral  nature  of  man.  God  says,  "  hear 
my  word  "  —  hear  it.  But  the  duty  enjoined  is  not  hearing  with 
the  ear  merely,  the  heart  being  disobedient :  but  hearing  with  a 
right  state  of  mind,  and  a  right  conduct.  Christ  requires  his  dis- 
ciples to  receive  the  Sacramental  bread  and  wine  in  remembrance 
of  him.  But  the  out^vard  act  of  receiving  and  the  mere  exercise 
of  memory  do  not  constitute  the  duty  enjoined.  The  act  of  re- 
ceiving and  the  exercise  of  memory  must  be  attended  with  affec- 
tions suited  to  the  nature  of  what  is  commemorated.  So  every 
thing  of  the  kind  must  and  will  be  understood  by  those  who  have 
an  intelligent  and  moral  nature. 

Let  it  then  be  carefully  remembered,  that  whenever  faith  is 
spoken  of  as  a  moral  virtue,  it  must  be  understood  to  imply  affec- 


84  FAITH. 

tions  corresponding  with  the  nature  of  its  objects.  Such  aifec- 
tions  must  accompany  it,  and  make  a  part  of  it,  or  it  is  not  the 
faith  which  God  requires. 

And  if  faith  is  attended  with  aflfections  which  correspond  with 
its  various  objects,  it  changes  its  particular  aspect  according  as  its 
object  is  changed.  If  it  relates,  as  it  often  does,  to  what  is  in- 
comprehensibly great  and  awful,  it  is  accompanied  with  reverence 
and  awe  ;  if  to  what  is  amiable,  it  is  accompanied  with  love  ;  if 
to  what  is  liateful,  with  abhorrence  ;  if  to  a  future  or  absent  good, 
with  desire  ;  if  to  an  event  divinely  predicted,  with  expectation ; 
if  to  what  is  injurious,  with  fear  or  dread.  Thus  the  believer 
reveres  or  loves,  desires  or  expects,  abhors  or  dreads,  according 
to  the  particular  object  which  he  contemplates.  And  the  perfec- 
tions and  works  of  God  may  be  so  presented  before  him,  as 
to  elicit  a  combination  of  several  devout  affections  at  the  same 
time. 

The  faith  which  is  peculiar  to  God's  elect,  presupposes  or  im- 
plies a  spiritual  discernment  of  the  reality  and  excellence  of  divine 
things.  The  unregenerate  man  may  have  much  speculative 
knowledge.  But  there  is  a  kind  of  knowledge,  of  which  he  is 
destitute.  The  things  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  know,  ''  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned."  This  knowledge  comes  from 
above.  God  hides  it  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  but  reveals  it  to 
babes,  that  is,  to  those  who  are  of  a  lowly  mind.  When  Peter 
declared  his  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  he  manifested  a 
knowledge  Avhich  was  communicated  to  him  by  his  Father  in 
heaven.  And  God  revealed  his  Son  in  Paul,  when  he  was  turned 
from  darkness  to  light.  This  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  results  from  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  is  found  only  in  those  who  believe  to  the  saving  of  the 
soul.  All  true  faith  is  founded  upon  this  spiritual  knowledge, 
this  inward  perception  of  the  importance  and  excellence  of  divine 
objects.  And  it  is  clear,  that  the  faith  which  rests  upon  this 
spiritual  discernment,  must  work  by  love  ;  for  this  discernment  is 
a  discernment  of  moral  beauty  and  loveliness ;  and  such  a  dis- 
cernment is  always  attended  with  complacency. 


FAITH.  86 

Evangelical  faith,  or  faith  in  Christ  differs  from  other  acts  of 
faith  in  regard  to  its  object,  but  not  in  regard  to  its  nature.  Faith 
in  genei-al  I  have  represented  to  be  a  cordial  belief  in  all  the  de- 
clarations of  God's  word  ;  a  confidence  in  his  veracity  ;  a  full  and 
affectionate  persuasion  of  the  certainty  of  those  things  which  God 
has  declared,  and  because  he  has  declai-ed  them.  Whatever  may 
be  the  divine  testimony,  and  to  whatever  object  it  may  relate, 
faith  receives  it,  and  rests  upon  it.  Now  the  testimony  of  God 
■which  evangelical  faith  receives,  relates  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Saviour  of  the  Avorld.  The  Scriptures  make  him  known  in 
his  divine  and  human  perfections,  in  his  offices,  his  works  and  his 
blessings.  Faith  receives  this  testimony.  Determine  what  this 
testimony  is,  and  you  determine  the  peculiar  character  of  evan- 
gelical faith.  The  divine  testimony  represents  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  men. 
So  faith  receives  him.  The  holy  Scriptures,  which  contain  the 
divine  testimony,  teach,  that  the  Messiah,  the  Saviour,  is  God, 
God  over  all,  possessed  of  all  divine  perfections,  and  that  all 
things  were  made  and  are  sustained  by  him.  In  the  exercise  of 
faith  we  receive  him  in  this  high  character,  and  love  and  adore 
him,  and  trust  in  him,  as  truly  God.  The  Scriptures  declare, 
that  the  Son  of  God  humbled  himself,  and  took  upon  him  our  na- 
ture ;  that  he  was  born,  and  lived,  and  died  as  a  man  ;  that  he 
suffered  and  died  for  us ;  that  he  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body- 
on  the  tree ;  that  in  order  to  deliver  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law 
he  was  made  a  curse  for  us ;  that  he  is  exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and 
a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins ;  that  he  is 
able  to  save  to  the  uttermost ;  that  in  him  all  fulness  dwells  ;  that 
he  will  guide,  protect  and  save  all  who  trust  in  him.  All  this, 
and  whatever  else  the  Scriptures  reveal  respecting  the  character, 
offices  and  blessitigs  of  Christ,  evangelical  faith  receives.  Faith 
is  a  counterpart  to  the  revealed  doctrine  respecting  the  Saviour. 
It  assents  to,  approves,  and  embraces  the  teachings  of  the  divine 
■word.  Faith  may  indeed  exist  in  principle,  wlierc  the  whole  range 
of  gospel  truth  is  not  actually  received,  being  as  yet  not  known. 
There  may  be  a  heart  to  believe  and  love  whatever  shall  be  re- 

VOL.  III.  8 


86  FAITH. 

vealeci  and  apprehended  respecting  Christ  and  his  work,  although 
at  present  the  knowledge  attained  is  exceedingly  limited.  This  is 
the  case  -with  a  young  child  that  is  sanctified,  and  with  a  newly 
converted  heathen.  They  understand  but  a  small  portion  of  the 
truths  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  But  that  which  they  do  under- 
stand, they  receive  with  meekness  and  love  ;  and  they  have  a  dis- 
position to  receive  more,  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  apprehended.  All 
parts  of  gospel  truth  arc  harmonious ;  all  are  of  the  same  nature. 
So  that  intelligently  and  sincerely  to  receive  and  love  any  part  of 
it,  is  virtually  to  receive  and  love  the  whole.  But  in  the  cases 
referred  to,  faith,  as  a  principle  in  the  renewed  mind,  is  imper- 
fectly developed.  If  you  would  get  a  fuller  idea  of  its  nature, 
you  must  look  at  it  in  one  who  has  distinctly  contemplated  and 
cordially  believed  the  different  parts  of  divine  truth. 

Some  suppose  that  true,  saving  faith  consists  in  believing  that 
Christ  died  and  rose  again,  and  is  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  what- 
ever may  be  the  particular  views  entertained  of  his  character  and 
the  design  of  his  death.  But  this  must  be  regarded  as  a  very 
partial  and  inadequate  idea  of  faith.  When  the  inspired  writers 
speak  of  Christ,  and  his  death,  and  the  work  he  accomplishes  as 
a  Saviour,  they  teach  a  variety  of  definite  truths  ;  and  these  very 
truths  we  are  to  receive.  We  must  believe  in  Christ.  But  who 
is  Christ  ?  What  is  his  character  ?  Is  he  a  mere  man  ?  Or  is 
he  something  more  than  a  man  ?  We  must  know  this,  before  we 
can  know  what  kind  of  faith  or  trust  we  should  have  in  him.  For 
surely  the  manner  in  which  we  should  regard  him,  and  the  trust  we 
should  repose  in  him,  if  he  is  a  mere  man,  is  very  different  from 
what  we  should  do,  if  he  is  truly  divine.  Trusting  in  Ciod  is 
quite  a  different  thing  from  trusting  in  man  —  so  different,  that  a 
dreadful  curse  is  pronounced  upon  those  who  put  their  trust  in 
man,  while  those  are  blessed  who  trust  in  God.  Now  as  the 
Scriptures  declare  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God  as  well  as  man,  and 
require  a  correspondent  faith  in  us  ;  it  is  clear  that  the  faith  of 
those  who  hold  Christ  to  be  merely  human,  does  not  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  Scriptures.  Again ;  to  believe  in  Christ  as  a 
teacher  merely,  does  not  meet  the  demands  of  the  Scriptures,  as 


FAITH.  87 

they  teach  that  he  sustains  other  offices  as  well  as  that  of  a 
teacher.  But  if  men  would  really  and  consistently  regard  him 
and  have  a  confidence  in  him  as  a  teacher,  they  would  receive  his 
instructions  respecting  other  points  of  his  character  and  work. 
It  is  also  evident  that  to  beUeve  in  Christ  merely  as  an  example 
of  virtuous  suffering  and  as  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of  truth,  is  not 
to  have  the  faith  required  ;  because  Christ  Avas  more  than  an  ex- 
ample, and  more  than  a  martyr  to  the  truth.  He  died  the  just 
for  the  unjust.  He  shed  his  blood  to  make  an  atonement  for 
sin.  True  gospel  faith  accords  with  this  doctrine  of  Christ's  vica- 
rious sufferings,  and  his  atoning  blood  and  rests  upon  his  all- 
sufficient  sacrifice  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  forgiveness  and 
eternal  life. 

I  might  continue  these  remarks.  But  I  have  said  enough  to 
illustrate  the  point  I  had  in  view,  that  is,  to  show,  that  our  faith 
is  defective  so  far  as  it  fails  of  receiving  all  the  instructions  of 
revelation  respecting  the  character  and  work  of  Christ  and  the 
blessings  he  confers  on  believers.  If  we  do  truly  embrace  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  gospel  respecting  the  Redeemer,  with  cor- 
respondent affections  ;  we  then  have  the  faith  which  most  effectu- 
ally purifies  the  heart  and  secures  the  approbation  and  bles- 
sing of  God. 

It  has  been  the  opinion  of  some,  that  it  is  the  nature  of  true 
gospel  faith,  to  believe  that  Christ  died  for  us  particularly  ;  that 
pardon  of  sin  and  eternal  salvation  are  actually  ours ;  and  that 
the  belief  of  this  belongs  to  the  first  act  of  saving  faith. 

In  order  to  disentangle  this  subject,  and  to  place  the  truth  in 
as  clear  a  light  as  possible,  I  offer  the  following  remarks. 

First.  If  real  Christians  —  persons  born  of  the  Spirit  and 
united  to  Christ  by  a  living  faith  —  if  such  persons  believe  that 
Christ  died  for  them  in  particular,  and  in  a  special  sense  —  if  they 
believe  that  they  are  pardoned,  and  that  a  full  salvation  is  actually 
theirs  ;  they  beUeve  the  truth.  Persons  of  this  character  are  real- 
ly pardoned,  and  entitled  to  salvation.  The  word  of  God  declares 
them  to  be  so.  They  have  repented  and  believe,  and  their  sins  are 
blotted  out,  and  they  shall  be  saved.     If  they  have  true  repentance 


»»  FAITH. 

and  faith,  they  are  pardoned  and  will  be  saved,  whether  they  think 
80,  or  not.  The  word  of  God  is  infallibly  true.  If  any  one,  who  has 
the  faith  which  worketh  by  love,  thinks  he  is  not  pardoned,  he  is 
mistaken.  And  this  is  a  very  supposable  case.  For  it  is  evident 
that  a  man  may  have  faith,  and  yet  for  a  time  may  not  know  that 
he  has  it.  He  may  misapprehend  the  state  of  his  own  mind,  and 
may  suppose  himself  an  unbeliever,  when  in  reality  he  is  a  believ- 
er. And  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  may  think  himself  a  believer, 
when  he  is  an  unbeliever.  This  last  is  plainly  the  more  common 
mistake,  and  the  more  likely  to  occur ;  because  men  are  gene- 
rally prone  to  think  too  favorably  of  themselves,  rather  than  too 
unfavorably. 

My  second  remark  is,  that  as  all  just  and  rational  belief  rests 
upon  evidence  of  the  truth  of  what  is  believed  ;  we  must  have 
evidence  that  our  sins  are  forgiven,  before  we  can  properly  believe 
it.  Now  the  Scriptures  declare  that  through  the  blood  of  Christ, 
sinners  shall  be  forgiven,  if  they  repent  and  believe.  The  Scrip- 
ture evidence  then,  that  we  are  forgiven,  is  no  other  than  evi- 
dence that  we  have  repentance  ajid  faith.  So  far  as  we  have 
evidence  of  this,  we  have  evidence  of  our  forgiveness.  If  we 
have  satisfactory  evidence  of  our  repentance  and  faith,  we  have 
evidence  which  ought  to  be  satisfactory,  of  our  forgiveness.  If 
we  hioiv  that  we  have  true,  gospel  faith,  we  knoiv  or  may  know 
that  our  sins  are  forgiven.  But  if  we  are  in  doubt  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  faith  in  us,  we  must  be  in  doubt  as  to  our  forgiveness. 

My  third  remark  respects  i]iQ  first  act  of  saving  faith.  In  this 
a  sinner  must  cordially  believe  what  is  true  ;  he  must  believe  either 
the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  truth.  It  is  a  truth  that  God  sent 
his  Son  to  die  for  sinners.  It  is  a  truth  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God  ;  that  he  is  divinely  glorious, 
an  almighty,  all-sufficient  Saviour  ;  that  he  invites  us  to  come  to 
him,  poor  and  miserable  as  we  are,  and  to  receive  what  he  offers, 
a  free,  full  salvation  ;  and  that  whosoever  cometh  to  him,  he  will 
in  no  wise  cast  out.  The  way  for  our  salvation  is  then  prepared. 
We  may  be  pardoned  and  saved,  if  we  will  receive  Christ  as  he 
is  offered,  and   trust   in  him   as  our   chosen    Saviour.     Here   is 


FAITH.  89 

truth  —  truth  in  various  particulars.  This  in  its  different  parts, 
and  as  a  whole,  is  what  we  are  required  to  believe  with  the  heart, 
and  to  act  upon.  That  is,  we  are  to  believe  that  Christ  is  an 
all-sufficient  Saviour,  and  to  receive  him  and  trust  in  him  as  such. 
We  are  to  beUeve  that  we  shall  be  pardoned,  if  we  Jiave  faith  in 
Christ ;  for  this  is  a  revealed  truth.  But  is  it  a  truth  that  any 
sinner  is  pardoned,  before  he  believes  ?  It  is  a  truth  that  pardon 
is  provided  and  offered,  and  that  he  may  be  pardoned  on  the  pre- 
scribed condition.  But  instead  of  being  actually  pardoned  tohile 
he  remains  in  unbehef,  he  is  under  condemnation,  and  the  wrath 
of  God  abideth  on  him.  If  he  beheves  the  whole  truth,  he 
will  beheve  this,  that  is,  that  he  is  vmder  condemnation.  And  if  he 
beheves  himself  pardoned  while  he  is  without  faith,  he  believes 
what  is  false.  But  is  he  not  pardoned,  when  he  believes,  and  as 
soon  as  he  beheves  in  Christ  ?  Yes.  He  is  in  reality  pardoned. 
But  how  shall  he  know  that  he  is  pardoned  ?  He  must  know  it 
by  first  knowing  that  he  is  a  behever.  His  persuasion  that  his 
sins  are  forgiven,  must  rest  on  the  consciousness  that  he  has  faith 
in  Christ.  If  he  has  faith,  and  yet  is  not  conscious  of  it,  he  can- 
not reasonably  conclude  that  he  is  pardoned,  though  in  fact  he  is 
so.  He  must  have  evidence  that  he  has  complied  with  the  con- 
ditions of  forgiveness,  before  he  can  on  any  just  grounds  believe 
that  his  sins  are  forgiven.  But  may  not  God  reveal  it  to  him  by 
an  inward  operation  of  the  Spirit,  that  his  sins  are  forgiven  ? 
Certainly  he  may,  if  he  please.  But  if  God  reveals  this  to  him, 
he  will  reveal  it  to  him  as  a  truth.  I  mean,  the  thing  revealed 
will  be  a  truth.  And  if  it  is  a  truth  that  his  sins  are  forgiven,  it 
is  a  truth  that  he  is  a  believer.  If  it  should  be  revealed  to  him 
that  his  sins  are  forgiven  before  he  has  faith,  or  w^hile  he  is  an 
unbeliever,  the  revelation  would  come  from  a  lying  spirit,  not 
from  God.  For  God  has  already  revealed  in  his  word,  and  set- 
tled it  forever,  that  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  every  unbe- 
liever, and  that  no  sinner  except  those  who  believe  in  Jesus,  is 
pardoned.  So  that  if  in  any  case,  the  Spirit  of  God  should 
reveal  to  a  man  that  he  is  pardoned,  the  revelation  would  pre- 
suppose that  he  is  a  believer;    and   thus  the  whole  revelation 

8* 


90  FAITH. 

taken  together,  would  be  a  momentous  truth,  namely,  that  he  be- 
lieves in  Christ,  and  is  pardoned.  All  God's  revelations  must  be 
consistent.  He  maj^  reveal  to  any  beh'ever,  that  all  his  sins  are 
forgiven,  and  his  name  written  in  heaven.  But  he  cannot  reveal 
to  an  unbeliever  that  he  is  pardoned  ;  for  this  would  be  contrary 
to  an  immutable  truth  before  revealed,  that  is,  that  every  unbe- 
liever is  under  condemnation.  God  may,  if  he  please,  reveal  to 
an  unbeliever  that,  through  divine  grace,  he  will  become  a  believer, 
and  will  thus  obtain  forgiveness  ;  or  that  his  sins  will  hereafter  be 
pardoned,  because  God  will  give  him  faith.  But  to  reveal  to  him 
that  he  is  pardoned,  while  he  is  without  faith,  would  be  to  contra- 
dict the  revelation  already  made.  And  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
suppose  that  such  a  revelation  may  be  made  in  the  way  of  excep- 
tion to  what  is  ordmarily  true  ;  for  the  declaration  of  God's  word 
that  no  one  who  is  without  faith  can  be  pardoned,  and  that  every 
unbeliever  is  under  divine  wrath,  is  grounded  on  the  unchangeable 
perfections  of  God  and  on  the  nature  of  the  case.  No  exception 
can  be  supposed. 

There  is  another  inquiry  to  which  I  would  here  direct  your  at- 
tention ;  namely,  whether  believing  in  Christ  is  to  be  considered 
as  merely  an  exercise  of  holiness,  and  whether  it  is  required  for 
the  same  purpose  and  in  the  same  way  with  any  other  exercise  of 
holiness.  If  one  who  is  convinced  of  sin  inquires,  what  he  shall 
do  to  be  saved,  is  it  as  just  and  proper  to  direct  him  to  love  his 
neighbor,  or  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  or  to  do  anything  else  that  is 
right,  as  it  is  to  direct  him  to  believe  in  Christ  ?  And  was  be- 
lieving in  Christ  required  so  specially  and  prominently  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  gospel  dispensation,  on  account  of  the  prevalence 
of  Judaism  or  Paganism,  or  any  other  local  or  temporary  circum- 
stances ? 

Reply.  Believing  in  Christ  is  undoubtedly  an  exercise  of  ho- 
liness, and  is  required  because  it  is  right.  Sinners  are  as  really 
under  obligation  to  do  everything  else  that  is  right,  as  they  are  to 
believe  in  Christ.  In  the  first  days  of  Christianity,  believing  in 
Christ  and  openly  acknowledging  him  was  a  test  of  character  of 
special  importance,  and  was  so  regarded  by  the  apostles.     But  if 


FAITH.  % 

we  should  stop  here,  we  should  overlook  what  is  peculiar  to  the 
gospel.  Believing  in  Christ  is  represented  as  a  special  duty. 
Christians  arc  designated  as  believers  in  Christ.  It  is  true,  they 
are  also  designated  as  those  who  obey  the  divine  law.  But  be- 
hoving in  Christ  is  made  a  special  designation.  See  how  the 
Apostle  John  speaks  of  the  people  of  God.  "  To  as  many  as 
received  him,  (Christ)  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name."  He  does  not  say, 
to  them  who  obeyed  the  moral  law  gave  he  this  power.  John  6: 
29,  the  people  inquired  what  they  should  do  that  they  might  work 
the  works  of  God.  Jesus  did  not  say,  this  is  the  work  of  God 
that  ye  obey  the  moral  law  ;  but  "  this  is  the  work  of  God,  that 
ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent.''''  The  other  is  required. 
But  this  is  what  God  specially  requires.  And  when  Christ  speaks 
of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  higher  operations,  he  speaks 
of  it  as  what  they  who  believe  on  him  shall  receive.  He  does  not 
say,  it  shall  be  given  to  those  who  keep  the  moral  law,  but  to  those 
who  believe  on  him.  In  like  manner  he  said  to  Martha,  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live  ;  and  who- 
soever hveth,  and  believeth  on  me,  shall  never  die."  And  when 
he  speaks  again  of  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  says, 
"  He  shall  convince  the  world  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on 
me,"  implying  that  this  was  the  great  sin.  And  he  frequently 
says,  that  those  who  do  not  beheve  on  him  shall  perish,  and  shall 
perish  because  they  do  not  believe  ;  implying  that  final  ruin  will 
come  upon  sinners  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  not  ultimately 
because  they  have  transgressed  the  divine  law,  but  because  they 
do  not  believe  in  Christ.  And  we  are  taught  that  salvation  does 
not  come  to  men  through  acts  of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  through 
faith  in  Christ.  If  then  we  should  overlook  this  special  impor- 
tance of  faith  in  Christ,  and  should  only  speak  of  it  as  a  duty 
required  of  us  in  common  with  all  other  holy  acts,  we  should  over- 
look an  essential  feature  of  the  gospel  revelation. 

And  as  to  the  supposition  that  faith  in  Christ  was  made  so 
prominent  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity,  merely  on  account  of 
local  or  temporary  circumstances,  —  are  not  men  sinners  at  the 


92  FAITH. 

present  time,  and  exposed  to  the  penalty  of  tLe  law,  as  much  as 
they  were  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  ?  Do  they  not  need  a  Sa- 
viour now,  as  much  as  then  ?  And  is  not  the  Saviour,  and  the 
way  of  salvation  the  same  ?  There  was  then  no  other  name  un- 
der heaven,  whereby  man  could  be  saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus. 
Then^  all  fulness  dwelt  in  Christ,  and  those  who  possessed  any 
spiritual  good,  received  it  of  him.  And  is  not  all  this  equally 
true  at  the  present  time  ?  Now  if  sinners  are  at  all  times  in  the 
same  apostate,  ruined  state,  and  have  the  same  need  of  salvation  ; 
and  if  Christ  is  the  only  Saviour  ;  and  if  all  who  are  saved  stand 
in  the  same  relation  to  him  and  are  equally  dependent  on  him  for 
spiritual  blessings  ;  then  surely  believing  or  trusting  in  him  is  a 
duty  which  is  at  all  times  equally  important  and  necessary,  and 
which  should  at  all  times  be  made  equally  prominent.  If  a  sinner 
at  this  day  has  the  conviction  of  sin  which  the  jailor  had,  and 
makes  the  inquiry  which  he  made ;  we  are  to  give  the  same  reply 
as  Paul  gave.  We  must  not  turn  him  off  with  a  general  direction 
to  keep  the  commandments,  to  submit  to  God,  or  to  do  what  is 
right ;  but  must  present  before  him  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
only  Saviour,  in  all  his  fulness,  and  exhort  him,  as  a  lost  sinner, 
to  believe  in  that  Saviour.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  Christ  directed 
the  young  man  who  inquired  what  he  should  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life,  to  keep  the  commandments,  and  afterwards  to  sell  all  that  he 
had  and  give  to  the  poor.  But  he  evidently  did  this  for  the  pur- 
pose of  detecting  the  latent  covetousness  and  selfishness  of  the 
young  man's  heart,  and  convincing  him  of  sin.  But  when  any 
one  is  convinced  of  sin,  and  asks  for  the  way  in  which  he  can  be 
saved,  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  repeat  and  explain  to  him  the 
direction  given  by  the  apostles,  and  to  labor  by  every  Scriptural 
consideration,  to  induce  him  to  comply  with  it.  You  know  how 
this  subject  was  treated  by  the  Saviour  himself,  in  his  final  com- 
mission to  his  apostles,  in  which  he  made  salvation  to  depend  not 
upon  keeping  the  commandments,  but  upon  believing.  There  was 
nothing  temporary  in  this,  for  it  was  to  be  the  same  in  all  ages  ; 
nothing  local,  for  it  was  to  be  the  same  in  all  the  world. 


LECTURE     XCIV. 


HOW   FAR  THE   ACT   OF   FAITH   CAN   BE  DESCRIBED  ?      ITS  PRACTI- 
CAL   INFLUENCE. 

While  attentively  considering  the  subject  of  faith,  we  are  struck 
with  the  fact,  that  no  particular  analysis  or  explanation  of  the  act 
of  believing  in  Christ  is  found  in  the  Scriptures.  Christ  and  the 
apostles  often  speak  of  faith,  as  indispensable  to  salvation  ;  and  it 
might  have  been  thought  that  they  would  show  us  by  an  exact 
description,  what  that  important  exercise  of  the  mind  is.  But 
where  do  they  do  this  ?  Many  a  person  has  anxiously  searched 
the  Scriptures  to  find  such  a  description  of  the  act  of  saving  faith, 
so  that  they  might  ascertain  whether  he  has  been  the  subject  of 
it,  or  might  know  how  to  put  it  forth.  But  no  such  exact  descrip- 
tion can  be  found.  And  on  careful  inquiry  you  will  be  convinced, 
that  faith  in  Christ,  as  an  act  or  sf,ate  of  the  mind,  cannot  be 
clearly  apprehended,  except  by  those  in  whom  it  exists.  It  can 
be  adequately  known  only  by  consciousness,  that  is,  bi/  being  ex- 
perienced or  felt.  And  this  being  the  case,  must  we  not  conclude 
that  an  exact  analysis  or  description  of  the  act  of  believing  in 
Christ  is  either  unnecessary,  or  that,  from  the  veiy  nature  of  the 
case,  it  is  impossible  ?  I  will  only  add,  that,  how  earnestly  soever 
unbelievers  may  endeavor  to  conceive  what  faith  in  Christ  is,  if 
they  become  true  believers,  they  always  find  faith  to  be  very  dif- 
ferent from  their  previous  idea  of  it. 

The  same  principle  holds  in  regard  to  other  religious  exercises. 
The  sacred  writers  do  not  undertake  to  give  an  exact  description 


94  FAITH. 

of  the  act  of  love  to  God  or  love  to  our  neighbor,  or  the  act  of 
repentance,  or  forgiveness  of  enemies.  They  require  these  and 
other  right  acts  of  the  mind,  and  use  the  words  suited  to  express 
them.  But  the  acts  themselves  they  nowhere  particularly  de- 
scribe. And  whatever  description  might  be  given  of  these  exer- 
cises or  states  of  mind,  no  one  could  rightly  conceive  what  thej 
are,  without  being  the  subject  of  them.  And  is  not  this  the  case 
■with  all  the  affections,  dispositions,  and  acts  of  tlie  mind  ?  No 
one  of  these  can  ever  be  known  by  us,  except  as  it  takes  |)lace 
withui  us.  What  idea  could  we  have  of  pity  and  love,  joy  and 
sorrow,  if  we  had  never  felt  them  in  our  hearts  ? 

But  in  regard  to  faith  in  Christ,  there  is  a  kind  of  descrijition 
or  explanation  which  we  may  give  of  it,  by  pointing  out  its  object, 
together  with  the  circumstances  in  which  it  takes  place,  and  the 
effects  which  flow  from  it ;  or  by  suggesting  some  apt  analogies. 
The  sacred  writers  treat  the  subject  in  each  of  these  ways.  And 
as  Christian  teachers,  we  are  to  conform  to  their  example.  Sup- 
pose then  you  wish  to  describe  faith  in  Christ  to  attentive  hearers, 
so  that  they  may  be  under  advantages  to  exercise  it,  or  to  judge 
whether  they  possess  it.  What  shall  you  do  ?  I  answer,  first, 
clearly  set  forth  the  object  of  faith,  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  Christ 
crucified,  Christ  exalted  and  glorified,  able  and  willing  to  save. 
Exhibit  him  as  infinitely  wise,  powerful  and  good,  as  faithful  and 
all-sufficient,  the  chief  among  ten  thousands,  and  altogether  love- 
ly. Thus  set  forth  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  proper  object  of 
faith,  worthy  of  the  most  affectionate  and  entire  trust  and  confi- 
dence. Who  can  fail  of  seeing  that  cordial  trust  in  such  a  Sa- 
viour is  a  duty  and  a  privilege  ?  Secondly.  Describe  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  faith  in  Christ  takes  place.  We  are  all  sin- 
ners —  all  gone  astray  —  utterly  undone  and  helpless  —  deserving 
the  threatened  punishment.  How  powerfully  do  these  circum- 
stances urge  us  to  apply  to  the  proffered  Saviour !  ''  Come  unto 
me,"  he  says,  "  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest."  Finding  ourselves  in  this  condition,  we  comply 
with  his  merciful  invitation,  and  come  to  him  for  rest.  No  one 
believes  in  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  unless  he  is  convinced  that  he  is 


FAITH.  95 

lost,  and  needs  a  Saviour.  In  order  to  persuade  men  thus  to 
seek  rest,  you  must  endeavor  to  impress  them  with  their  "wretched 
condition  as  sinners.  Again.  Describe  the  blessings  which  are 
sought  and  secured  by  behoving,  that  is,  the  deliverance  of  the 
soul  from  sin  and  its  merited  punishment,  and  complete  restoration 
to  the  image  and  favor  of  God.  All  the  good  comprised  in  a. holy 
salvation  is  what  the  sinner  who  believes,  desires  and  receives. 
And  as  an  inducement  to  believe,  this  good  is  to  be  described  in 
all  its  preciousness,  and  to  be  offered  to  the  sinner  as  a  free  gift, 
"  without  money  and  without  price."  And  there  is  one  thing 
more  which  the  teachings  of  the  inspired  writers  authorize,  name- 
ly, to  make  a  representation  of  faith  by  apt  analogies.  "  They 
that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick."  A 
man  is  visited  with  a  dangerous  illness.  He  applies  to  various 
physicians,  but  instead  of  being  cured,  he  grows  worse.  He  is 
finally  informed  of  a  physician  of  extraordinary  skill,  who  has 
never  failed  to  cure  diseases  like  his.  The  physician  comes.  The 
sick  man  looks  up  to  him  with  joy,  and  says,  "  I  am  nigh  unto 
death,  but  I  have  confidence  in  you,  and  I  now  trust  myself  in 
your  hands.  Kind  physician,  pity  and  help  me,  a  poor,  dying 
man,  and  help  me  speedily,"  Now  the  feeling  of  that  sick  man's 
heart,  his  desire,  his  hope,  his  confidence,  is,  in  some  respects, 
like  the  feeling  of  those  who  are  convinced  of  sin,  and  with  confi- 
dence in  the  grace  of  Christ,  apply  to  him  for  salvation. 

Another  illustration  may  be  taken  from  the  case  of  a  man  who 
has  been  forced  from  a  burning  ship  into  the  ocean.  He  is  ex- 
hausted and  ready  to  sink,  when  a  friend  hastens  to  him  with  a 
boat,  and  says,  take  my  hand,  and  I  will  save  you.  Now  think 
with  what  a  feeling  this  drowning  man  welcomes  the  approach  of 
his  friend,  seizes  his  hand,  and  trusts  himself  to  his  care.  That 
feeling  resembles  the  feeling  of  the  sinner  who  sees  himself  lost, 
and  looks  to  Jesus  for  salvation.  It  resembles  the  act  of  believing 
in  Christ. 

Once  more.  A  man  by  extravagance  and  vice  is  involved  in 
debt,  for  which  he  is  confined  in  prison.  After  indescribable  suf- 
ferings in  his  gloomy  cell,  he  is  visited  by  a  generous  man,  and 


yo  FAITH. 

that  man  one  whom  he  has  often  injured.  The  visitant  says  to 
the  prisoner,  "  I  have  heard  of  your  unhappy  condition,  and  have 
come  to  reheve  you.  Here,  if  you  will  accept  it,  is  money  suflS- 
cient  to  pay  your  debt,  and  procure  your  discharge."  With  a 
broken  but  rejoicing  heart,  the  prisoner  accepts  the  favor  from  his 
generous  friend.  This  transaction  may  illustrate  what  takes  place 
when  a  sinner  becomes  sensible  of  his  miserable  condition,  and 
"with  hearty  confidence  applies  to  Christ,  accepts  his  kindness,  and 
trusts  in  him  for  eternal  life. 

But  although  we  may,  in  these  and  other  ways,  do  something 
towards  illustrating  the  act  of  believing  in  Christ ;  it  is  still  true, 
that  no  one  can  rightly  apprehend  what  it  is,  without  being  him- 
self the  subject  of  it.  We  tell  a  sinner,  that  faith  is  the  act  of 
one  who  is  fully  convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery,  and  of  the  ina- 
bility of  himself  and  all  other  creatures  to  save  him.  But  how 
can  he  get  a  clear  idea  of  that  act,  when  he  has  never  had  such 
a  conviction  of  his  guilty,  ruined  condition  ?  We  tell  him,  that 
faith  is  cordially  assenting  to  the  gospel  offer,  and  receiving  and 
resting  upon  Christ  for  pardon  and  eternal  life.  But  how  can  he 
have  a  just  conception  of  all  this,  when  he  has  never  seen  the 
preciousness  of  the  gospel  offer,  the  all-sufficiency  and  glory  of 
Christ,  or  the  reasonableness  and  safety  of  trusting  in  him  ?  A 
man  can  no  more  conceive  aright  what  faith  is  without  believing, 
than  he  can  conceive  what  love  is  without  loving,  or  what  pleasure 
is  without  being  pleased  ?  And  the  result  of  all  our  endeavors  to 
show  what  it  is  to  believe  in  Christ,  will  be,  that  none  but  true 
believers  will  have  any  clear  idea  of  faith.  Unbelievers  may 
have  a  shadowy  conception  of  it,  as  we  tell  them  it  is  like  other 
things  which  they  do  understand.  They  may  have  a  specula- 
tive knowledge  of  what  Scripture  teaches  respecting  the  necessity, 
the  object,  and  the  duty  of  faith,  sufficient  to  convince  them  of 
their  obligation  to  believe,  and  the  inexcusable  guilt  of  unbelief. 
But  what  it  is  to  receive  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  is  not  truly  known 
except  to  believers. 

It  results   directly  and   certainly  from  the  nature   of  faith, 


FAITH.  97 

■whether  considered  generally,  or  with  particular  reference  to 
Christ,  that  it  produces  important  effects.  The  Scriptures  repre- 
sent it  as  having  an  efficacy  which  moves  all  the  springs  of  action, 
and  controls  the  Avhole  man.  And  it  is  manifestly  adapted  to 
exert  such  an  influence.  Those  things  which  God  has  set  before 
us,  as  objects  of  faith,  are  infinitely  important  and  excellent,  and 
are  suited  to  excite  the  warmest  affections  and  the  most  earnest 
efforts.  It  is  true,  those  objects  are  not  perceived  by  our  senses. 
But  this  occasions  no  uncertainty  ;  for  they  are  made  known  to 
us  by  the  best  possible  evidence,  tlie  word  of  God.  All  must  see, 
that  the  things  which  God  has  revealed  would  have  a  mighty 
influence  upon  us,  if  they  were  visible  and  present.  But  if  we 
have  faith,  things  not  seen,  and  things  which  are  to  take  place 
thousands  of  years  hence,  cause  the  same  kind  of  emotions  and 
exert  the  same  influence,  as  if  they  were  visible  and  present. 
For  we  know  that  they  will  be  visible  and  present,  and  that  they 
will  soon  be  as  important  and  as  interesting  to  us,  as  they  could 
be  if  they  were  visible  and  present  now.  So  that  if  the  perfec- 
tions of  God  and  celestial  employments  and  pleasures  are  suffi- 
cient to  move  and  govern  the  hearts  of  saints  who  are  now  in 
heaven,  they  are  sufficient  to  move  and  govern  our  hearts.  If 
the  transactions  of  the  judgment  day,  if  the  glorious  appearing 
of  the  Lord  from  heaven,  the  assembling  of  the  universe,  the 
final  sentence,  the  blessedness  of  the  righteous,  and  the  misery  of 
the  wicked,  will  be  sufficient  to  arrest  our  attention,  and  kindle 
our  feelings,  and  rouse  all  our  powers  of  action,  when  those 
momentous  events  shall  take  place,  they  are  sufficient  now.  And 
so  far  as  we  have  faith,  they  will  actually  exert  this  influence. 
Men  in.  general  look  at  sensible  objects.  The  things  which  are 
seen  hmit  the  sphere  of  their  observation.  But  faith  shifts  the 
scene.  As  to  the  most  momentous  objects,  it  puts  us  in  a  new 
world.  The  believer  looks  not  at  the  things  which  are  seen, 
which  are  temporal ;  but  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen,  which 
are  eternal.  He  fixes  the  eyes  of  his  mind  upon  them.  In  the 
high,  spiritual  sense,  he  sees  them.  They  stand  before  him  as 
VOL  ni.  9 


98  FAITH. 

realities.  They  affect  him  more  deeply  than  any  earthly  objects. 
They  command  his  supreme  regard. 

The  influence  of  faith,  as  a  general  principle,  is  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures,  particularly  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

"  By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice 
than  Cain."  He  believed  God's  promise  respecting  the  seed  of 
the  woman.  He  listened  to  the  appointment  of  sacrifices,  and  in 
cordial  obedience  to  the  divine  direction,  he  offered  the  "  more 
excellent  sacrifice,"  that  is,  a  lamb  —  representing  the  future 
atonement  made  by  the  Lamb  of  God.  Cain's  offering  was 
faulty,  because  he  was  destitute  of  faith.  He  did  not  believe 
the  promise  of  God,  and  did  not  sincerely  offer  the  sacrifice 
required. 

"  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see  death." 
Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  confided  in  his  promises  ;  and,  as  a 
reward  of  his  faith,  he  was  taken  immediately  to  heaven  without 
dying. 

"  By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  of  God  of  things  not  seen  as 
yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark."  Here  both  the'  nature 
and  influence  of  faith  appear.  God  informed  Noah  of  the  coming 
deluge,  and  commanded  him  to  build  an  ark.  And  although  the 
destruction  of  the  world  by  water  had  never  been  heard  of 
before,  Noah  was  sure  it  would  take  place  at  the  time  predicted. 
God's  word  made  it  a  certainty.  And  in  consequence  of  his  con- 
fidently believing  what  God  had  declared,  he  undertook  and 
accomplished  the  laborious  work  prescribed.  Thus  it  was  hj  faith 
that  he  prepared  an  ark. 

"  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called  to  go  out  into  a 
place  which  he  should  after  receive  for  an  inheritance,  obeyed  ; 
and  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither  he  went."  Abraham  had 
full  confidence  in  God,  and  looked  upon  the  thing  which  he  had 
promised  as  certain.  His  simple,  unwavering  faith  in  God  was 
the  principle  of  his  conduct,  and  satisfactorily  accounts  for  his 
leaving  his  kindred,  and  going  out  he  knew  not  whither. 

The  writer  (verse  13)  speaks  of  the  faith  of  those  whom  he 


FAITH.  99 

had  particularly  mentioned,  and  says  ;  "  These  all  died  in  faith^ 
not  having  received  the  promises,"  (that  is  the  good  contained  in 
them,)  "  but  having  perceived  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded 
of  them,  and  embraced  them."  God  had  promised  them  not 
only  earthly  good,  but  endless  happiness  in  the  world  to  come. 
They  confidently  expected  the  blessings  promised,  and  began  to 
enjoy  them.     Such  was  the  nature  and  operation  of  their  faith. 

The  faith  of  Abraham  Avas  strikingly  illustrated  in  his  conduct 
respecting  Isaac.  God  had  promised,  that  in  Isaac  his  seed 
should  be  called,  and  all  the  families  of  the  earth  blessed.  Thus 
everything  was  made  to  depend  on  the  life  of  Isaac.  If  he 
should  die,  what  would  become  of  the  promises  ?  Yet  Abraham 
had  such  a  strong  and  confident  belief  in  the  faithfulness  of  God, 
that  he  hesitated  not,  when  commanded,  to  sacrifice  Isaac.  Why 
was  he  nut  agitated  and  perplexed  with  the  objections  which 
might  be  made  against  the  execution  of  such  an  appalling  com- 
mand ?  Because  he  had  faith.  Simple  faith  in  God  relieved  all 
diflSculties,  and  obviated  all  objections.  But  how  would  it  be 
possible  for  God  to  fulfil  his  promise,  if  Isaac  should  be  slain  ? 
With  such  a  question  Abraham  gave  himself  no  concern.  He 
knew  that  God  had  promised  and  was  able  to  perform.  He  knew 
that  the  Almighty  God  could  do  whatever  the  case  required  — 
that,  if  necessary,  he  could  even  raise  Isaac  from  the  dead, 
though  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  was  an  event  which  had 
never  taken  place.  Thus,  in  this  whole  affair,  the  main  spring  of 
action  was  faith,  that  is,  confidence  in  God,  and  a  certain  expec- 
tation that  he  would  accomphsh  his  word,  whatever  difficulties 
might  stand  in  the  way. 

Joseph,  at  the  close  of  his  life,  mentioned  the  departure  of  the 
Israelites,  and  gave  commandment  that  his  bones  should  be  car- 
ried with  them  to  Canaan,  by  faith ;  that  is,  because  he  believed 
the  word  of  God  respecting  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  and  looked 
upon  their  departure  from  Egypt  and  their  inheriting  the  promised 
land  as  a  reality,  a  matter  of  fact,  just  as  we  do  now. 

We  are  also  informed  of  the  faith  of  Moses.  He  believed  the 
promises  of   God,  respecting  the  deliverance  of  his  oppressed 


100  FAITH. 

brethren,  and  the  everlasting  blessings  to  be  conferred  on  the 
faithful  in  another  world.  He  chose,  therefore,  to  have  his  lot 
with  the  people  of  God,  how  much  soever  it  might  cost  him.  The 
good  which  he  expected  was,  in  his  estimation,  far  better  than  all 
the  treasures  of  Egypt,  and  far  more  than  an  overbalance  for  the 
sufferings  which  he  might  be  called  to  endure.  He  had  faith  in 
God,  and  with  full  assurance  anticipated  the  accomplishment  of  all 
his  promises. 

Finally,  the  inspired  Avriter,  in  a  strain  of  powerful  eloquence, 
recounts  the  efficacy  of  faith  in  other  instances.  "  What  shall  I 
say  more  ?  For  the  time  would  fail  me  to  tell  of  Gideon,  and 
Barak,  and  Samson,  and  Jephthah,  and  David,  and  Samuel,  and 
the  prophets,  who  ilirougli  faith,^^  that  is,  animated  and  borne  on 
by  confidence  in  God,  "  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness, 
obtained  promises,  stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the 
violence  of  fire,  escaped  the  edge  of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness 
"were  made  strong,  waxed  vahant  in  fight,  put  to  flight  the  armies 
of  the  aliens.  Women  received  their  dead,  raised  to  life  again  ; 
and  others  were  tortured,  not  accepting  deliverance,  that  they 
might  obtain  a  better  resurrection.  And  others  had  trial  of  cruel 
mockings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover  of  bonds  and  impris- 
onments. They  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  were 
tempted,  were  slain  with  the  sword  ;  they  wandered  about  in 
sheep-skins  and  goat-skins,  being  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented." 
All  this  they  did  and  suffered  by  faith.  They  had  confidence  in 
God,  and  had  no  doubt  of  the  fulfilment  of  his  great  and  precious 
promises.  The  good  held  up  before  them  excited  their  highest 
efforts,  and  made  hardships  and  sufferings  easy  to  be  endured. 
Such  was  the  influence  of  their  faith. 

Other  parts  of  Scripture  agree  with  this  interesting  chapter,  in 
regard  to  the  efficacy  of  faith.  2  Cor.  5:  7,  "  For  we  walk  bi/ 
faith,  not  by  sight."  We  are  influenced,  not  by  the  objects  of 
sight,  but  by  those  invisible,  spiritual  objects,  which  are  made 
known  by  the  word  of  God,  and  which  faith  regards  as  precious 
realities.  In  A6ts  15:  9,  it  is  represented,  that  God  purified  the 
hearts  of  Gentile  converts  by  faith  ;  that  is,  by  a  cordial  beUef  in 
the  Saviour,  and  in  the  truths  of  his  gospel. 


FAITH.  Wl 

It  is  easy  to  see,  that  evangelical  faith,  or  believing  in  Christ, 
must  have  an  influence  preeminently  important.  For  the  charac- 
ter and  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  comprise  everything 
which  is  excellent  and  glorious,  and  which  is  adapted  to  awaken 
the  gratitude  and  love  of  believers.  Let  us  only  apprehend  who 
and  what  the  Saviour  is  —  that  he  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners  —  that  he  redeemed  us  by  his  blood  —  let  us  behold 
and  love  this  Almighty,  all-suG5cient  Saviour,  and  cordially  trust 
in  him  ;  and  what  manner  of  persons  shall  we  be,  in  all  holy  con- 
versation and  godliness !  We  shall  be  drawn,  by  motives  the 
most  powerful  and  efficacious,  to  gratitude  and  obedience,  to 
humiUty  and  purity  —  in  a  word,  to  everything  lovely  and  excel- 
lent, both  in  feeling  and  in  conduct.  We  shall  abound  in  all  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit. 

From  what  has  been  said  of  the  nature  and  influence  of  faith, 
it  plainly  follows,  that  errors  of  opinion,  and  faults  of  character, 
are  in  a  great  degree  owing  to  the  want  or  the  weakness  of  the 
principle  of  faith. 

A  man  who  is  governed  by  Christian  faith,  endeavors  conti- 
nually to  conform  to  the  word  of  God.  That  is  his  rule.  Whether 
the  doctrines  which  God  teaches  in  his  word  are  consonant  to  the 
dictates  of  his  natural  reason,  or  not,  —  whether  comprehensible 
or  incomprehensible,  is  not  the  question  with  him.  H^e  inquires 
for  the  mind  of  God,  as  declared  in  the  Scriptures.  When  he 
finds  this,  his  inquiry  is  ended,  and  his  opinion  fixed.  He  that 
relies  upon  his  own  reasoning  for  the  discovery  of  the  truth,  is 
continually  asking  how  this  and  that  doctrine  of  revelation  can  be 
true,  or  how  it  can  be  consistent  with  some  other  truth.  To  such 
a  man  I  would  endeavor,  in  different  ways,  to  give  satisfaction. 
But  one  of  my  rephes  would  be  this.  Suppose  you  cannot  see 
hoiv  the  doctrine  can  be  true,  or  hoiv  it  can  be  consistent  with 
some  other  truth.  What  then  ?  Is  it  strange  that  a  being  of  so 
small  a  mind  as  man  —  a  being  of  yesterday,  who  knows  compa- 
ratively nothing,  should  be  unable  to  see  what  God  sees  in  regard 
to  the  deep  things  of  revelation,  and  the  consistency  of  the  diflfe- 

9* 


102  _  FAITH 

rent  parts  of  the  great  system  of  divine  truth  with  each  other  ? 
Is  not  the  declaration  of  God  a  sufficient  ground  of  behef  ?  The 
true  beHever  looks  for  no  better  ground  than  this.  He  desires  to 
be  taught  of  God.  He  sits  at  the  feet  of  Jesus.  But  if,  instead 
of  this,  a  man  abandons  the  principle  of  child-like  faith,  and  leans 
to  his  own  understanding,  he  comes  at  once  into  contact  with  error, 
and  is  exposed  to  be  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine, 
and  to  embrace  opinions  which  are  totally  contrary  to  the  decisions 
of  holy  writ. 

It  is  obvious  that  all  the  faults  in  our  practice  are,  in  a  great 
measure,  owing  to  the  want  or  weakness  of  faith.  Without  faith, 
in  the  general  sense,  man  has  no  motives  to  a  holy  life  ;  because 
all  the  motives  to  holiness  are  found  in  those  things  which  are  the 
objects  of  faith,  and  which  are  brought,  by  faith,  to  have  an  influ- 
ence over  the  mind.  Were  there  no  God,  no  moral  law  with 
sanctions,  no  future  retribution,  there  would  be  no  motive  to  right 
conduct.  And  if  a  man  does  not  cordially  believe  in  these  ob- 
jects, they  will  be  to  him  as  though  they  were  not.  It  is,  then, 
perfectly  clear,  that  rehgious  faith  is  indispensable  to  a  holy  life, 
and  that  all  which  is  faulty  and  blame-worthy  in  our  life,  results 
from  the  want  of  faith.  If  we  indulge  the  spirit  of  covetous- 
ness  —  if  we  set  our  affections  on  worldly  honors  or  pleasures, 
it  is  because  we  are  destitute  of  that  faith  which  overcomes 
the  world.  If  we  cordially  believed  the  truths  of  revelation 
—  if  we  had  a  hvely  sense  of  the  purity  and  goodness  of 
God's  law,  —  of  our  own  guilty,  ruined  state,  the  abounding 
grace  of  Christ,  and  the  realities  of  the  future  world  —  if  the 
great  things  made  known  in  the  Scriptures  were  continually  pre- 
sent to  our  view,  and  our  understandings  and  hearts  were  filled 
with  them,  earthly  riches,  honors,  and  pleasures  would  no  longer 
allure  us,  and  a  worldly  spirit  would  die  away. 

How  can  we  account  for  insensibility  and  sloth  among  those 
who  profess  to  be  followers  of  Christ  ?  Are  not  the  wonders  of 
redeeming  love,  the  interests  of  the  soul  and  the  things  of  eternity, 
suflicient  inducements  to  pious  diligence  and  zeal?  Yes.  But 
unbelief  makes  them  appear  distant  and  uncertain,  takes  away 


PAITH.  103 

their  power  to  produce  emotion  and  eJQFort,  and  leaves  us  as 
supine  and  dormant,  as  though  these  glorious  objects  had  no 
existence. 

Our  indifference  to  the  salvation  of  sinners  and  the  prosperity 
of  Christ's  kingdom  must  be  traced  to  the  same  cause.  Did  we 
rightly  apprehend  and  feel  the  certainty  and  importance  of  invis- 
ible, eternal  things,  what  deep  concern  should  we  have  for  im- 
mortal souls,  ready  to  perish !  What  strong  desires  for  their 
redemption  from  sin  and  death  !  How  alive  should  we  be  to  every 
thing  connected  with  the  prosperity  of  Christ's  kingdom  and  the 
interests  of  eternity ! 

It  is  the  want  of  faith,  that  renders  us  so  dull  and  heartless  in 
our  devotions.  If  in  our  seasons  of  worship  we  should,  by  faith, 
look  into  eternity  and  see,  in  the  hght  of  truth,  the  objects 
brought  to  view  in  the  Scriptures ;  the  vanities  of  the  world 
would  cease  to  occupy  our  thoughts,  and  all  the  ardor  of  our 
souls  would  be  kindled  up  in  our  addresses  to  our  God  and 
our  Judge. 

If  such  evils  result  from  unbelief ;  then  how  vastly  important 
it  is  that  we  should  be  freed  from  it !  And  how  important  that 
we  should  take  pains,  in  all  suitable  ways,  to  cultivate  a  steady, 
strong  and  lively  faith  !  Our  experience  teaches,  that  the  best 
means  to  increase  our  faith  is,  to  exercise  it.  Every  time  we 
look  at  spiritual  and  eternal  things  with  a  full  persuasion  of  their 
certainty  and  a  just  impression  of  their  importance,  we  do  some- 
thing towards  strengthening  the  principle  of  faith.  But  this  salu- 
tary influence  will  generally  be  in  proportion  to  the  difficulty 
attending  the  exercise.  A  single  instance  of  faith,  like  that  which 
was  repeatedly  exercised  by  Abraham,  will  be  more  beneficial  in 
its  influence,  than  many  acts  of  faith  where  no  difficulty  is  en- 
countered. Take  care  then,  when  you  meet  obstacles  and  dangers, 
when  clouds  and  tempests  arise,  when  sense  and  reason  are  con- 
founded, and  earthly  supports  fail,  —  take  care  to  exercise  a 
strong  and  steady  faith.  Trust  in  God.  Fearlessly  obey  his 
word,  and  quietly  repose  upon  his  precious  promises.     In  this 


104  FAITH. 

way  your  faith   will   acquire   a   strength   which  will   render  it 
invincible. 

And  let  me  add,  that  dee^  impressions  of  divine  things,  and 
fervent  aflfections  towards  them,  in  other  words,  animated  exer- 
cises of  faith,  will  exert  a  far  more  salutary  influence,  than  those 
exercises  which  are  comparatively  feeble.  To  acquire  the  char- 
acter of  unwavering  and  elevated  faith,  you  must  aspire  to  such 
apprehensions  of  divine  objects,  as  will  wake  up  all  your  moral 
powers,  and  excite  to  acts  of  vigorous,  undivided  faith.  Such 
wakefulness  and  activity  in  the  enlightened  believer  have  an 
abiding  influence.  They  produce  an  impression,  which  will  remain 
through  life,  and  will  show  its  happy  results  in  the  world  to  come. 
How  inexpressibly  important  then  must  it  be,  that  those  divine, 
eternal  things,  which  are  the  objects  of  faith,  should  take  deep 
hold  on  our  intellectual  and  moral  nature  ;  should  excite  to  lively 
emotion  and  vigorous  action,  and  fill  all  our  capacities.  In  pur- 
suit of  this  end,  let  us  diligently  employ  the  means  afibrded  us  for 
elevating  our  piety.  By  retirement,  by  watchful  care  not  to  be 
engrossed  with  earthly  pursuits,  by  devout  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, by  heavenly  contemplation,  by  mortifying  sinful  afiections, 
by  spiritual  converse  with  God,  and  by  incessant  desires  and 
prayers  for  the  illuminating,  purifying  influence  of  the  Spirit,  let 
us  strive  to  get  away  from  the  delusion  of  sensible  things,  to 
rise  above  the  world,  and  to  bring  our  understandings  and  hearts 
under  the  power  of  divine  truth  ;  deeming  ourselves  happy,  when 
favored,  even  for  a  few  moments,  with  clear,  spiritual  knowledge 
and  strong  faith  ;  and  then  proceeding  from  moments  to  hours, 
and  from  hours  to  days,  till  we  come  to  look  with  an  undiverted 
eye  at  things  not  seen  and  eternal,  and,  from  morning  to  night, 
to  have  our  feelings  and  actions  swayed  by  faith  in  God.  Oh ! 
blessed  attainment !  When  shall  we  rise  to  it  ?  Lord,  increase 
our  faith. 


LE  CTURE    XC  V. 


THE   NATURE,  DESIGN,  AND    EFFICACY    OF   PRAYER. 

Our  next  subject  is  the  general  duu^  of  prayer.  But  it  is  not 
to  be  understood  from  this  arrangement  of  subjects,  that  prajer, 
in  the  life  of  a  Christian,  is  separate  from  repentance  and  faith, 
and  follows  after  them  in  the  order  of  time.  Thej  in  fact  imply 
each  other.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  acceptable  prayer  without 
repentance  and  faith  ;  and  no  such  thing  as  repentance  and 
faith  in  one  who  lives  without  prayer.  Still  propriety  requires 
us  to  give  to  the  duty  of  prayer  a  distinct  and  very  particular 
consideration. 

Prayer,  in  a  general  view,  is  the  utterance  or  offering  up  of 
holy  desires  to  Grod.  It  is  a  communication  from  the  soul  of  man 
to  the  Creator  and  Redeemer  of  the  world.  The  Scriptures  rep- 
resent it  as  calling  upon  God,  crying  to  God,  and  asking  God. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  words  spoken  in  prayer  are 
merely  an  expression  of  the  desu-es  of  the  heart.  Without  holy 
affections  and  desires,  the  most  devout  words  are  but  sounding 
brass  and  a  tinkUng  cymbal.  On  the  other  hand,  if  without 
uttering  any  w^ords,  we  have  holy  desires,  we  have  the  substance 
of  prayer,  though  not  its  common  form.  The  amount  of  true, 
acceptable  prayer  can  never  be  estimated  by  the  number  of 
devout  words  which  are  spoken,  or  by  the  length  of  time  em- 
ployed in  the  duty.  In  the  judgment  of  God,  he  prays  most, 
■who  expresses  the  greatest  amount  of  spiritual  affections  and 
desires. 


106  THE    DUTY     OF    PRAYER. 

After  these  hints  as  to  the  nature  of.  prayer,  I  shall  consider 
its  design  and  efficacy.  And  here  we  must  guard  with  sacred 
care  against  supposing,  that  the  influence  which  the  Scriptures 
ascribe  to  prayer,  does  in  any  degree  supersede  the  agency  of 
God  in  conferring  the  blessings  which  are  consequent  upon  prayer. 
The  efficacy  of  prayer  is  from  God.  The  blessings  secured  by 
prayer  are  as  really  gifts  of  God,  as  if  they  were  bestowed  with- 
out any  regard  to  prayer.  In  other  words,  prayer  has  no  influ- 
ence of  itself^  independently  of  God,  If  it  has  efficacy,  it  is 
because  God  gives  it  efficacy.  He  worketh  all  in  all.  And  in 
prayer  there  is  always  an  express  or  implied  recognition  of  this ; 
and  in  its  exercise  we  are  more  and  more  impressed  with  the 
truth,  that  every  good  and  perfect  gift  cometh  from  God. 

The  design  and  efficacy  of  prayer  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the 
words  of  Christ  — "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you."  For  the 
purpose  of  illustration,  he  refers  to  the  readiness  with  which 
parents  bestow  favors  upon  their  children.  And  he  teaches  that 
God  is  more  ready  to  give  spiritual  blessings  to  those  who  pray 
for  them,  than  we  are  to  give  good  things  to  our  children.  This 
view  of  the  subject  is  perfectly  simple  and  plain.  The  influence 
of  prayer  is  as  intelligible  and  as  free  from  difficulty,  as  the  in- 
fluence of  means  in  any  other  case.  Both  in  the  natural  and 
moral  world,  means  and  ends  are,  by  divine  appointment,  con- 
nected together  ;  so  that  by  the  use  of  the  proper  means,  we 
obtain  the  desired  end.  Here  you  see  the  whole  efficacy  of 
means,  and  particularly  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  By  prayer,  we 
avoid  the  most  dreadful  evils,  and  obtain  blessings,  both  temporal 
and  eternal,  of  the  greatest  worth. 

No  inspired  writer  gives  a  more  striking  representation  of  the 
influence  of  prayer,  than  the  Apostle  James.  He  says  that, 
For  more  than  three  years,  when  prevailing  wickedness  called 
for  divine  judgments,  the  prayer  of  Elijah  had,  an  efficacy 
to  prevent  rain.  After  that,  it  had  an  efficacy  to  bring  down 
rain  in  copious  efiusion.  But  how  much  more  precious  is  the 
influence  of  prayer,  when  it  brings  to  believers  the  blessings 
of  forgiveness,  sanctification,  and  eternal  life,  and  when  it  pro- 


THE    DUTY    OP    PRAYER.  107 

cures  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  unconverted,  and 
helps  forwai-cl  the  redemption  of  the  world  from  the  power  of  sin. 
The  effect  of  prayer  in  the  case  of  Elijah,  was  indeed  miraculous. 
But  the  Apostle,  with  evident  propriety,  makes  use  of  it  to  illus- 
trate the  influence  of  prayer  in  other  cases.  For  if  God  has  such 
respect  to  ju'ayer  even  in  working  miracles,  he  will  unquestionably 
show  ecjual  respect  to  it  in  the  common  dispensations  of  his  grace. 

How  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  explained  and  limited  by 
the  word  of  God  will  be  more  particularly  considered  in  another 
place. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  propriety  or  fitness  of  prayer  in  all  respects, 
particularly  in  relation  to  God  and  the  ends  of  his  government ;  in 
relation  to  those  who  perform  the  duty ;  and  in  relation  to  the 
blessings  which  it  secures. 

Prayer  has  a  manifest  propriety  and  fitness  in  relation  to  the 
Supreme  Being,  inasmuch  as  it  is  only  such  a  treatment  of  him, 
as  corresponds  with  his  infinite  perfections.  Hoav  suitable  it  is 
that  the  eternal  God,  who  is  possessed  of  unbounded  excellence, 
and  is  the  fountain  of  all  the  good  in  the  creation,  should  be  the 
object  of  the  devout  affections  which  are  exercised  in  prayer ! 
How  just  and  proper  that  we  should  approach  our  heavenly 
Father  with  veneration  and  love,  and  with  filial  confidence  make 
known  to  him  the  desires  of  our  hearts ! 

It  is  manifestly  one  of  the  great  ends  of  the  divine  administra- 
tion, to  promote  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  his  intelligent 
creatures.  Now  prayer  is  a  leading  and  comprehensive  exercise 
of  holiness.  And  this  particular  exercise  of  holiness  is  indispen- 
sable. For  if  men  should  cease  to  pray,  and  thus  give  up  the 
principal  exercise  of  hohness,  they  would  give  up  all  the  other 
exercises,  and  no  holiness  would  remain  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
For,  in  fact,  what  holy  man  lives  without  prayer  ?  Or  what  man 
■who  lives  without  prayer,  can  be  considered  as  holy  ?  I  say  then, 
if  there  should  be  no  prayer,  there  would  be  no  holiness  ;  and  if 
no  holiness,  then  no  happiness.  Thus  the  benevolent  design 
of  God  in  regard  to  the  human  race  would  fail  of  its  accom- 
phshment. 


108  THE    DUTY    OF    PllAYEK. 

Prayer  is  evidently  suited  to  the  nature  and  condition  of  those 
who  are  to  perform  the  duty.  Were  not  our  minds  perverted  by 
sin,  the  attributes  and  works  of  God  would  continually  excite  us 
to  acts  of  religious  worship.  Parents  and  children  in  every  fam- 
ily would  bend  the  knee  to  God  in  supplication  and  praise.  The 
youth  in  our  schools  and  colleges,  in  our  shops  and  on  our  farms, 
would  dehght  in  prayer.  And  what  crowded  assemblies  s.iould 
we  have  of  persons  of  every  age  and  condition,  coming  together 
with  the  fervent  desire  to  enjoy  devout  intercourse  with  God  ! 

Prayer  is  primarily  and  chiefly  a  matter  of  moral  feeling. 
Reason  decidedly  approves  of  piety  towards  God.  And  where 
piety  is  wanting,  reason  wants  its  noblest  exercise  and  its  best 
gratification.  But  reason  may  suggest  objections  to  the  duty 
of  prayer,  which  mere  reasoning  cannot  obviate.  It  is  under  the 
influence  of  right  moral  affection 'that  we  rise  above  objections  and 
difficulties,  and  draw  near  to  the  throne  of  grace,  and  pour  out 
our  hearts  in  humble  prayer. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  we  could  have  no 
motive  to  prayer,  were  we  free  from  sin  and  misery.  In  a  state 
of  perfect  holiness,  we  should  have  a  deep,  constant,  happy  con- 
viction of  our  dependence  on  God.  If  deprived  of  intercourse 
with  our  heavenly  Father,  we  could  enjoy  no  good.  Should  we 
be  excluded  from  the  presence  of  him  whom  we  supremely  love, 
what  desolation  should  we  feel  1  Our  very  holiness  (if  indeed 
we  could  have  any,)  would  be  the  source  of  misery  to  us,  as  it 
would  create  desires  which  could  never  be  satisfied.  In  a  state 
of  moral  rectitude,  spiritual  intercourse  with  God  would  consti- 
tute our  chief  good.  Our  worship  would  not  indeed  be  prompted 
by  guilt  or  by  suffering.  We  should  be  like  the  angels  in 
heaven,  who  are  filled  with  pure  love  to  God  ;  and  we  should  unite 
with  them  in  the  devout  exclamation,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord 
of  hosts ;  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory."  While  survey- 
ing his  immutable  perfections  and  the  various  acts  of  his  merciful 
providence,  we  should  utter  the  veneration  and  love  and  gratitude 
of  our  hearts  in  language  like  that  of  inspiration  :  Bless  the 
Lord,  0  our  souls,  and  all  that  is  within  us  bless  his  holy  name 


THE    DUTY    OF    PRAYER.  109 

—  Unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only  wise  God, 
he  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever.  In  such  forms  as  these 
would  holy  love  impel  us  to  worship  the  God  of  heaven.  And 
who  is  authorized  to  say,  that  supplications  to  God  for  his  blessing 
would  be  excluded  ?  The  holy  Saviour  abounded  in  supplications. 
And  there  appears  no  reason  to  doubt  that  mankind,  had  they  re- 
mained perfectly  obedient  to  God,  would  have  sought  and  obtained 
his  favors  by  prayer,  although  their  worship  would  doubtless  have 
consisted  chiefly  in  pious  admiration,  gratitude,  and  praise. 

But  it  is  specially  important  to  consider  prayer  in  relation  to 
those  who  are  in  a  state  of  apostasy,  guilt  and  misery.  We  are 
all  transgressors  of  the  divine  law,  and  exposed  to  suffer  an  ever- 
lasting death,  the  beginnings  of  which  have  already  come  upon 
us.  But  through  the  great  propitiation,  our  heavenly  Father  de- 
clares himself  ready  to  pardon  and  save.  Now  when  we  look  upon 
ourselves  as  criminals,  condemned  to  endure  all  that  is  dreadful 
to  the  soul,  shall  we  not  confess  our  wickedness,  and  cry  to  that 
merciful  Being,  who  is  able  to  deliver  us  from  the  punishment  we 
deserve  ?  Shall  we  not  beseech  the  great  Physician,  that  he 
would  remedy  the  moral  disorder  within  us,  which  is  so  hateful  in 
itself,  and  so  destructive  in  its  consequences  ?  When  we  see  our- 
selves poor  and  wretched,  shall  we  not  apply  in  humble  prayer  to 
!um,  who  can  remove  all  our  poverty  and  wretchedness,  and  sup- 
ply all  our  wants  ?  And  when  we  recollect  what  forbearance, 
what  unmerited  kindness  God  has  shown  toward  us  through  our 
past  life,  shall  we  not  render  him  hearty  thanks  ?  And  in  the 
exercise  of  benevolence  and  compassion  towards  our  fellow-crea- 
tures, who  are  in  the  same  guilty,  ruined  state  with  ourselves, 
shall  we  not  lift  up  our  souls  to  God  in  their  behalf,  praying  that 
his  grace  may  abound  in  their  salvation  ? 

Prayer,  which  is  thus  manifestly  suited  to  our  nature  and  con- 
dition, will  spontaneously  flow  forth  from  our  hearts,  if  we  have 
right  views  and  feehngs  respecting  ourselves.  Conscious  of 
having  offended  God,  we  shall  make  penitent  confession  and  seek 
forgiveness.  Knowing  ourselves  to  be  poor  and  needy,  we  shall 
ask  favor  of  a  bountiful  and  divine  Benefactor.     Being  fully  con- 

VOL.  ni.  10 


110  THE    DUTY    OF    PRAYER. 

vinced  that  we  are  totally  unable  to  secure  our  own  spiritual  wel- 
fare, we  shall  repair  to  him  in  whom  is  everlasting  strength,  and 
beseech  him  to  guide  us  by  his  wisdom,  to  defend  us  from  danger 
by  his  omnipotence,  and  to  raise  us  at  length  to  that  high  and  holy 
place,  which  no  one  can  ever  reach  without  constant  help  from 
above.  If  our  hearts  are  right,  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to 
be  told  that  prayer  is  made  our  duty  by  the  authority  and  com- 
mand of  God.  We  shall  be  prompted  to  it  by  every  thought  and 
feeling  of  our  souls.  We  shall  pray  for  the  same  reason  that  we 
eat  when  we  are  hungry,  or  drink  when  we  are  thirsty,  or  stretch 
forth  our  hand  for  help,  when  in  the  deepest  distress.  We  shall 
pray  for  the  same  reason  that  we  breathe.  Prayer  is  the  sponta- 
neous, vital  action  of  the  spiritual  man  —  the  very  beating  of  the 
heart. 

But  there  is  one  point  which  deserves  to  be  considered  a  httle 
farther.  Among  the  most  important  personal  blessings  to  be 
sought  in  prayer,  is  the  increase  of  our  pious  affections,  and  the 
improvement  of  our  Christian  character.  And  prayer  has  in  it- 
self a  direct  tendency  and  adaptedness  to  secure  to  us  this  inesti- 
mable blessing. 

Prayer  tends  to  increase  the  strength  of  our  pious  affections, 
by  bringing  them  into  lively  action.  In  sincere  and  fervent 
prayer,  our  repentance,  faith,  love,  submission,  and  other  Chris- 
tian graces  are  exercised  with  special  animation  and  fervor.  Nev- 
er do  Christians  so  tenderly  mourn  for  sin,  or  so  firmly  resolve  to 
forsake  it ;  never  do  they  exercise  so  strong  a  confidence  in  God ; 
never  have  they  so  full  a  conviction  of  the  preciousness  of  the 
soul  and  the  worth  of  salvation,  and  never  are  they  so  powerfully 
drawn  to  pious  submission  and  obedience,  as  under  the  influence 
of  such  views  of  God,  of  Christ,  and  of  eternity,  as  occupy  their 
minds  in  prayer.  By  prayer  they  are  best  secured  against  error, 
and  most  firmly  established  in  the  beUef  of  the  essential  truths  of 
religion.  The  doubts  and  difficulties  with  which  Christians  are 
sometimes  harassed,  are  all  scattered,  when  in  humble  prostration 
of  soul  they  draw  near  to  God,  behold  his  glory,  and  enjoy  com- 
munion with  him.     Now  as  the  various  Christian  graces  are  thus 


THE    DUTY    OF    PRAYER.  Ill 

brought  into  a  state  of  the  highest  activity  and  fervor  in  the  exer- 
cise of  prayer,  it  follows,  according  to  a  general  law  of  our  na- 
ture, that  they  thus  grow  in  strength ;  in  other  words,  that  the 
mind,  by  this  lively  exercise  of  the  Christian  graces,  acquires  a 
greater  aptitude  to  their  exercise  in  time  to  come,  and  to  their  ex- 
ercise in  an  increased  degree  of  strength.  This  is  one  way  in 
which  prayer  evidently  contributes  to  the  improvement  of  Chris- 
tian character. 

But  it  is  important  to  guard  against  a  mistake  which  has  come 
in  as  an  inference  from  the  fact  just  stated.  Because  it  is  the 
natural  influence  of  prayer  to  increase  our  sanctification,  it  has 
been  thought  by  some,  that  the  only  way  in  which  prayer  for  spir- 
itual blessings  is  answered,  or  in  which  it  has  efficacy,  is  the  salu- 
tary influence  which  it  naturally  exerts  upon  the  minds  of  those 
"who  pray. 

But  this  was  not  the  opinion  which  the  sacred  writers  advanced. 
The  Apostle  James  points  out  the  influence  of  prayer  very  partic- 
ularly. If  any  one  w^as  sick,  he  directed  that  the  elders  of  the 
church  should  pray  for  him,  and  said  that  the  prayer  of  faith 
would  save  the  sick,  and  that  the  Lord  would  raise  him  up.  He 
said  also  —  "  Confess  your  faults  one  to  another  and  pray  one  for 
another,  that  ye  may  be  healed.  The  earnest,  fervent  prayer  of 
the  righteous  man  availeth  much."  The  Apostle  then  illustrates 
the  great  efficacy  of  prayer  by  referring  to  the  case  of  the  proph- 
et Elijah.  But  Elijah's  prayer  produced  its  effect  not  upon  his 
own  mind,  but  upon  the  rain  of  heaven.  And  in  the  other  case 
mentioned,  the  efficacy  ascribed  to  the  prayer  offered  up  by  the 
elders,  was  not  in  the  way  of  improving  their  own  minds,  but  in 
healing  the  sick.  These  were  indeed  miraculous  operations.  But 
they  were  introduced  by  the  Apostle,  for  the  very  purpose  of  il- 
lustrating the  common  efficacy  of  prayer,  and  of  encouraging 
Christians  generally  to  engage  in  the  duty. 

But  if  you  would  be  still  more  satisfied  on  this  point,  consider 
the  prayers  of  Jesus.  His  Father  always  heard  him,  and  his 
prayers  had  the  best  possible  influence.  But  he  was  always  per- 
fectly holy.     Of  course,  it  could  not  have  been  the  design  of 


112  THE    DUTY    OF    PRAYER. 

prayer  to  produce  a  sanctifying  eJ0Fect  upon  his  own  mind.  And 
yet  it  was  in  .his  case,  that  prayer  had  the  highest  conceivable  effi- 
cacy. And  that  efficacy  was  simply  this.  Jesus  prayed,  and 
God  heard  him.  He  asked  for  blessings,  and  God  gave  them, 
and  gave  them  in  answer  to  his  prayer.  It  was  doubtless  true, 
that  the  pious  exercises  of  Jesus  contributed  to  the  growth  of  his 
mind  and  of  his  holy  affections.  This  was  a  natural  effect  of 
prayer  in  him,  as  well  as  in  his  followers.  But  the  direct  design 
and  effect  of  his  prayers  was  what  I  have  stated.  It  was  the  pro- 
curing of  blessings  for  his  people. 

Now  as  prayer  is  an  obvious  duty  of  all  rational  beings  ;  as  it 
is  inculcated  upon  them  by  a  God  of  inj&nite  love,  and  as  it  is  a 
chief  exercise  of  holiness,  it  is  a  solemn  truth,  as  before  intimar- 
ted,  that  those  who  live  without  prayer  are  destitute  of  holiness. 
Go  through  the  world,  and  you  will  find  no  moral  excellence,  no 
true  goodness  in  those,  who  do  not  worship  the  Supreme  Being. 
They  may  have  the  semblance  of  goodness,  but  they  have  not  the 
reality.  They  may  possess  amiable  and  useful  qualities  as  mem- 
bers of  domestic  and  civil  society.  But  they  possess  nothing 
which  corresponds  with  their  high  moral  relations.  That  men  may 
be  truly  virtuous  and  holy,  they  must  know  and  love  and  worship 
him,  who  is  the  source  and  the  pattern  of  holiness.  According 
to  the  Scriptures,  piety  towards  God  is  the  basis  of  all  real  good- 
ness, and  those  who  do  not  worship  God  are  under  the  dominion 
of  sin.  The  nature  of  the  case  shows  that  it  must  be  so.  For 
if  men  have  holiness,  they  will  be  sure  to  exercise  it  in  the  most 
natural  and  obvious  way.  If  they  really  love  what  is  excellent, 
they  will  certainly  love  and  adore  him  who  is  supremely  excellent. 
If  they  are  benevolent,  they  will  pursue  the  only  way  to  accom- 
plish the  object  of  benevolenoe.  If  they  are  friends  to  moral  law 
and  government,  they  will  cherish  the  principle  which  is  the  spring 
of  obedience  and  submission.  And  if  they  desire  pure  and  holy 
enjoyment,  they  will  use  the  proper  means  of  obtaining  it. 

These  remarks  applj'^  in  a  measure  to  Christians.  For  if  they 
who  live  entirely  without  prayer  are  entirely  destitute  of  holiness, 
Christians  must  fall  short  in  the  degree  of  their  holiness  in  pro- 


THE    DUTY    OF    PRAYER.  113 

portion  as  thej  at  any  time  neglect  prayer.  If  their  prayers  are 
obstructed,  their  growth  in  grace  is  obstructed.  If  they  do  not 
ask,  they  will  not  receive.  And  if  they  ask  with  only  a  low  de- 
gree of  fervor,  they  can  expect  to  receive  only  a  low  degree  of 
spiritual  good.  It  is  sometimes  the  case  that  hunger  or  cold  re- 
duces men  to  a  state  which  seems  nearer  death  than  life.  There 
may  be  a  feeble  motion  of  the  heart,  so  that  they  are  not  ab- 
solutely dead.  But  they  are  as  destitute  of  action  and  enjoy- 
ment, as  if  death  had  really  passed  upon  them.  To  a  state  much 
like  this  are  Christians  sometimes  reduced  in  consequence  of  the 
neglect  of  prayer.  The  power  of  religion  is  gone.  And  they 
have  hardly  Ufe  enough  left  to  be  sensible  of  the  symptoms  of 
death  which  are  upon  them.  How  deplorable  is  their  condition  ! 
In  their  better  days,  they  have  known  the  preciousness  of  divine 
blessings.  A  fulness  of  those  blessings  is  freely  offered  to  them. 
With  reference  to  forgiveness  of  sin,  growth  in  grace,  a  useful  life, 
support  in  trouble,  and  peace  in  death,  their  merciful  Father  says, 
"  Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find."  How 
great  must  be  our  folly  and  guilt,  and  what  merited  reproach 
must  fall  upon  us,  if,  by  our  inexcusable  neghgence,  we  deprive 
ourselves  of  blessings  so  precious  and  so  easily  obtained ! 

10* 


LECTURE    XCVl. 


BFFICACT  OP  PRATER  SUBJECT  TO   LIMITATIONS.     OBJECTION 
ANSWERED. 

It  has  thus  far  been  my  object  to  show,  that  prayer  is  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  obtaining  the  blessings  which  we  need ;  that  its 
efficacy  consists  in  this,  that,  according  to  the  promise  of  God,  it 
secures  his  favors.  The  efficacy  of  prayer  is  not  however  to  be 
understood  in  the  most  absolute  sense,  but  is  to  be  qualified  by 
the  word  of  God,  and  by  Christian  experience.  My  meaning  ia, 
that  the  texts  which  assert  that  God  will  answer  prayer,  are  not 
to  be  taken  without  some  restriction ;  and  that  if  we  would  form 
an  exact  judgment  respecting  the  influence  of  prayer,  we  must 
avail  ourselves  of  other  representations  of  Scripture,  and  of  the 
instruction  afforded  by  the  course  of  divine  providence.  This  is 
the  mode  of  proceeding  which  we  are  accustomed  to  adopt  in  oth- 
er cases.  And  it  is  in  consequence  of  neglecting  it,  that  men  so 
often  run  into  hurtful  extremes  respecting  the  doctrines  and  duties 
of  religion. 

In  a  general  view,  Scripture  sets  forth  the  influence  of  prayer 
in  the  strongest  terms.  And  the  providence  of  God  corresponds 
with  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  In  all  ages,  prayer  has  exerted 
a  glorious  efficacy.  But  both  the  word  and  the  providence  of 
God,  and  the  experience  of  his  people,  show  that  the  efficacy  of 
prayer  must  be  imderstood  with  several  important  qualifications. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  act  of  prayer, 
in  order  to  be  efficacious,  must  be  accompanied  with  the  various 
branches  of  holiness.     It  must  be  accompanied  with  faith.     "  He 


PRAYER.  115 

that  Cometh  to  God,  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  the 
rewarder  of  those  who  diUgently  seek  him."  It  must  be  accom- 
panied with  Tmmility  and  turning  from  sin.  "  If  my  people  shall 
humble  themselves,  and  pray  —  and  turn  from  their  wicked  ways, 
then  will  I  hear  from  heaven  and  will  forgive  their  sin."  It  must 
be  accompanied  with  a  forgiving  spirit.  "  When  ye  stand  pray- 
ing, forgive,  if  ye  have  aught  against  any,  that  your  Father  also 
who  is  in  heaven,  may  forgive  you."  Prayer  must  be  attended 
with  importunity.  So  Jesus  repeatedly  taught.  And  it  must  be 
accompanied  with  obedience.  The  Apostle  John,  after  long  expe- 
rience, said,  "  "Whatsoever  we  ask,  we  receive,  because  we  keep 
his  commandments,  and  do  those  things  which  are  pleasing  in  his 
eight."  Such,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  the  prayer  which  is 
efficacious  to  procure  divine  favors. 

To  explain  this  matter  more  particularly,  I  observe,  in  the 
second  place,  that  prayer  can  have  no  such  efficacy  as  would  vio- 
late the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  he  contrary  to  the 
itsual  methods  of  the  divine  administration.  However  unqualified 
may  be  the  language  sometimes  used  to  express  the  influence  of 
prayer,  we  must  always  understand  that  influence  to  be  Hmited  by 
the  principles  of  revelation.  Suppose  a  man  prays  that  God 
would  give  him  liberty  to  live  in  sin,  or  would  make  him  happy 
without  religion.  Can  any  one  think  that  such  prayer  would  pre- 
vail ?  Or  suppose  a  man  prays  that  the  heathen  may  be  turned 
from  their  sins  and  be  made  partakers  of  the  great  salvation,  with- 
out any  knowledge  of  the  gospel.  Would  God  give  efficacy  to 
such  prayer  ?  Again.  Suppose  a  man  who  is  in  want  of  food 
for  himself  and  family,  prays  that  God  would  cause  the  earth  to 
produce  a  harvest  in  the  midst  of  winter.  Or  suppose  a  man,  im- 
patient of  the  slow  movements  of  vegetation  in  the  summer,  prays 
that  God  would  cut  short  the  work,  and  cause  the  wheat  which  is 
sown  in  the  morning,  to  spring  up  and  come  to  maturity  before 
the  evening.  Or  suppose  you  look  with  compassion  upon  the  peo- 
ple of  God  in  their  imperfect,  suffering  state,  and  pray  that  God 
would  this  very  day  make  them  complete  in  holiness  and  happi- 
ness, and  receive  them  to  glory.     Can  you  think  that  in  any  of 


116  PRAYER. 

these  cases  God  would  turn  aside  from  his  own  chosen  method  of 
administration  to  grant  such  unreasonable  requests  ?  Do  his 
promises  imply  that  he  will  answer  such  prayers  as  these  ? 

Thirdly ;  prayer  cannot  have  efficacy  in  any  way  which  would 
he  inconsistent  with  divine  wisdom. 

The  only  wise  God  will  accomplish  his  purposes  in  the  most 
suitable  manner.  But  in  regard  both  to  his  purposes  and  the 
manner  of  accomplishing  them,  except  where  he  has  given  us  par- 
ticular information,  we  are  liable  to  mistake.  We  may  regard  a 
particular  thing  as  a  proper  object  of  desire  and  prayer,  and  it 
may  be  that  the  desire  and  prayer  are  right  in  us.  But  it  may 
not  seem  good  in  the  sight  of  God  that  the  thing  desired  and 
prayed  for  should  be  granted.  It  is  plainly  right  for  us  to  pray, 
that  a  dear  friend  or  relative  may  be  raised  up  from  sickness,  and 
be  made  a  blessing  to  the  world.  But  God  may  judge  it  best 
that  he  should  not  be  raised  up.  And  if  so,  then  however  benev- 
olent and  pious  our  feelings,  however  fervent  our  prayers,  and 
however  strong  our  confidence  in  God,  the  particular  favor  for 
which  we  pray  will  not  be  granted. 

An  instance  in  point  occurs  in  the  hfe  of  Paul.  Considering 
what  he  called  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  to  be  a  great  evil,  he  prayed 
with  importunity  that  it  might  be  removed.  But  God,  in  his 
wisdom,  saw  it  to  be  best  not  to  remove  it.  Of  course,  the 
particular  thing  for  which  the  Apostle  prayed  could  not  be 
granted.  A  servant  of  Christ,  in  a  time  of  persecution,  may 
pray,  and  ought  to  pray,  that  he  may  be  preserved  from  the 
designs  of  his  enemies.  But  it  may  seem  good  to  that  wisdom 
which  cannot  err,  that  he  should  honor  his  Lord  by  suffering  as  a 
martyr.  There  never  was  a  more  fervent  prayer,  or  one  more 
pleasing  to  God,  than  the  prayer  which  Jesus  offered  up  in  the 
garden.  And  yet  it  was  not  consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God 
to  grant  the  thing  for  which  he  prayed. 

The  same  principle  holds  in  regard  to  the  time  and  the  means 
of  accomplishing  what  we  ask  in  prayer.  Christians  visited  with 
sickness  may  pray  earnestly,  and  with  confidence  in  God,  that 
the  means  they  are  now  using  may  be  made  effectual  to  cure  their 


PRATER.  117 

disease.  But  God  may  judge  it  best  that  they  should  have  a 
longer  exercise  of  patience,  and  should  afterwards  be  cured  by 
different  means.  Their  request  for  the  restoration  of  health  may 
be  granted,  though  not  at  the  time  or  by  the  means  specified  in 
their  prayer. 

But  such  instances  may  be  viewed  in  another  light.  Although 
Christians  in  such  a  case  really  desire  health,  they  desire  another 
object  still  more,  that  is,  the  glory  of  God.  It  is  chiefly  for  the 
sake  of  glorifying  their  Father  in  heaven  by  useful  action,  that 
they  desire  health.  And  if  that  great  object  may  be  promoted, 
they  are  content.  In  reahty,  their  first,  and  in  a  sense  their  only 
prayer  is,  that  whether  by  health  or  by  sickness,  by  life  or  by 
death,  God  may  be  honored,  and  his  holy  cause  advanced.  Thus 
in  one  way  or  another  their  request  is  granted.  If  the  inferior 
good  is  denied  them,  they  are  sure  to  obtain  that  which  is  the 
supreme  and  ultimate  object  of  their  desire. 

To  these  limitations  of  the  eflScacy  of  prayer  objections  may  be 
urged.  It  may  be  alleged  that  this  mode  of  treating  the  subject 
tends  to  produce  discouragement ;  that  a  hope  and  belief  that 
God  will  hear  our  prayers  and  will  give  us  the  very  things  we 
ask,  is  necessary  to  excite  earnestness  and  perseverance  ;  that 
if  we  admit  so  many  Umitations  and  abatements  of  the  eflScacy 
of  prayei,  we  must  be  perplexed  and  disheartened  ;  and  that, 
feeling  it  to  be  so  uncertain,  whether  God  will  grant  our 
requests  or  not,  we  shall  be  tempted  to  neglect  prayer  alto- 
gether. 

To  these  objections  I  make  the  following  reply. 

1.  If  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is,  in  fact,  subject  to  such  limita- 
tions as  I  have  suggested,  we  ought  surely  to  be  aware  of  it.  To 
offer  prayer,  with  mistaken  views  as  to  the  manner  in  which  God 
will  regard  it,  must  have  an  unfavorable  influence,  and  must,  in 
the  end,  occasion  disappointment  and  distress.  We  ought,  then, 
to  labor  assiduously  to  obtain  just  views  of  the  subject,  so  that 
our  prayers  and  our  expectations  of  an  answer  may  be  conformed 
to  the  precepts  and  promises  of  God's  word  and  the  principles  of 
bis  administration. 


118  PRAYER. 

2.  The  above  mentioned  limitations  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer  are 
evidently  desirable  and  necessary. 

In  numberless  cases,  we  know  not  what  would  be  best,  either 
for  ourselves  or  for  others  ;  and  if  we  make  requests,  as  we  must, 
according  to  the  promptings  of  our  own  minds,  we  shall  be  liable 
to  ask  for  things  which  neither  divine  wisdom  nor  divine  goodness 
can  grant.  And  even  in  regard  to  those  things  which  may  be 
real  blessings,  and  which  God  may  be  ready  to  give  us  in  answer 
to  prayer,  we  may  have  erroneous  conceptions  as  to  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  bestowment.  In  a  word,  we  are  often  totally 
incompetent  to  judge  what  is  on  the  whole  best ;  and  if  we  would 
avoid  the  charge  of  arrogance,  we  must  willingly  submit  to  the 
infallible  judgment  of  God.  To  him  it  of  right  belongs  to  control 
events.  And  although  he  allows  and  encourages  us,  in  all  cir- 
cumstances, to  make  known  our  requests  to  him  ;  still  he  reigns, 
and  will  order  the  affairs  of  the  creation  according  to  his  own  wise 
and  holy  will. 

And  3.  The  view  I  have  'presented  of  the  subject  does,  in  truths 
correspond  with  the  best  feelings  of  Christians.  In  regard  to 
those  cases  in  which  the  will  of  God  is  not  made  known,  they 
may  have  desires,  and  may  express  them  in  prayer ;  but,  if  their 
hearts  are  right,  their  prayers  will  be  co7iditional.  They  pray  for 
health,  or  for  success  in  some  benevolent  undertaking ;  but  with  a 
submissive  temper.  They  are  wilHng  that  God  should  deny  their 
request,  if  it  seemeth  good  in  his  sight.  They  indulge  no  wish 
that  their  prayer  should  prevail,  unless  it  is  consistent  with  the 
principles  of  revelation,  with  God's  unsearchable  wisdom,  and 
with  the  established  methods  of  his  administration.  The  limita- 
tions mentioned  are  just  what  they  would  desire.  On  any  other 
principles  they  would  hardly  dare  to  pray.  As  to  all  those  mat- 
ters, concerning  which  they  know  not  what  in  God's  view 
would  be  best ;  although  they  freely  make  known  their  re- 
quests in  prayer,  their  hearts  prompt  them  to  say,  as  Jesus 
did,  "  Nevertheless,  not  as  /will,  but  as  thou  wilt."  This  sub- 
jection of  our  will  to  the  will  of  God  is  implied  in  the  Christian 
character. 


PRAYER.  119 

To  what  conclusion  then  are  we  brought  ?  It  is  said,  if  we 
admit  so  many  limitations  and  abatements  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer, 
we  shall  be  disheartened,  and  shall  neglect  prayer  wholly.  This 
is  the  same  as  to  say  —  if  we  cannot  have  our  prayers  literally 
answered,  even  when  thus  answering  them  would  be  in  opposition 
to  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  settled  method  of  his  administra- 
tion, we  will  not  pray  at  all ;  —  we  will  not  pray,  unless  we  can 
be  assured  that  God  will  grant  our  requests,  even  when  he  sees  it 
best  not  to  grant  them.  To  what  a  different  result  does  the  spirit 
of  truth  and  piety  lead !  The  devout  Christian,  being  deeply 
sensible  of  his  own  habiUty  to  mistake,  would,  in  many  cases,  be 
afraid  to  express  his  desires  in  prayer,  unless  ne  believed  that  his 
desires  will  be  controlled  by  divine  wisdom.  But  as  he  knows 
that  God  rules  over  all,  he  is  emboldened  to  draw  near  to  his 
mercy  seat,  and,  with  the  spirit  of  a  child,  to  pour  out  his  heart 
before  him,  saying  —  these.  Lord,  are  the  desires  of  my  heart. 
But  ignorant  as  I  am,  and  exposed  to  error  —  sinful  as  I  am,  and 
prone  to  indulge  unsuitable  desires,  I  cheerfully  refer  my  requests 
to  thee.  Grant  them,  if  consistent  with  thy  will ;  if  not,  thy  will 
be  done.  Remove  or  continue  the  suffering  I  endure,  as  seem- 
eth  good  in  thy  sight.  Such  submission  to  God,  and  such  confi- 
dence in  his  wisdom  and  goodness  respecting  the  issue  of  our 
prayers,  would  be  far  from  being  a  discouragement.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  would  be  promotive,  in  the  highest  degree,  of  fervor  and 
importunity.  Never  did  any  one  manifest  more  importunity  than 
Jesus  did,  when,  under  the  pressure  of  unutterable  distress,  he 
repeatedly  prayed  —  "  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass 
from  me  ;  "  though,  at  the  same  time,  he  referred  it  entirely  to 
God  to  grant  the  request  or  not,  as  should  be  agreeable  to  his 
•will.  And  who  prays  with  more  importunity  than  Paul  did,  when 
he  thrice  besought  the  Lord  that  his  grievous  affliction  might 
depart  from  him  ?  But  he  prayed  with  a  readiness  to  bow  to  the 
divine  will,  and  he  afterwards  showed  that  he  was  satisfied  with 
the  grace  of  Christ,  and  even  gloried  in  it,  though  the  particular 
favor  he  sought  was  not  granted.  And  who  can  think  that  the 
Apostle  ever  entertained  a  lower  opinion  of  the  importance  or  the 


120  PRAYER. 

efficacy  of  prayer,  or  prayed  with  less  fervor,  or  less  confidence 
in  God,  or  less  hope  of  success,  because  he  had  learned  by 
experience,  that,  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  answering  prayer, 
the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  will  exercise  his  own  unerring 
wisdom  ? 


LECTURE    XCVIl. 


A   MISTAKEN  IDEA   AS   TO   THE   PRAYER   OF   FAITH. 

There  are  not  a  few  devout  Christians,  who  entertain  an 
opinion  different  from  the  one  I  have  advanced  on  the  efficacy 
of  prayer.  The  opinion  referred  to  appears  to  be  associated  with 
honorable  conceptions  of  God,  and  is  supported  by  arguments  which 
must  be  allowed  to  be  plausible,  and  Avhich  ought  not  to  be  passed 
over  without  serious  consideration. 

I  would  here  remark,  by  way  of  precaution,  that  right  views  on 
the  subject  before  us  undoubtedly  have  a  tendency  to  promote  the 
spirit  of  prayer.  Any  opinion,  therefore,  must  be  regarded  as 
more  or  less  erroneous,  if  it  be  found  to  be  unfavorable  in  its 
influence  upon  the  practice  of  devotion.  And  if  it  shall,  in  fact, 
appear,  that  those  who  understand  and  embrace  the  view  which  I 
have  taken  of  the  subject,  have  less  confidence  in  God ;  if  they 
engage  in  prayer  with  less  fervor ;  or  if  their  general  character  is 
less  influenced  by  their  devotions ;  or  if  it  can  be  fairly  shown 
that  the  view  which  I  have  exhibited  naturally  tends  to  such  a 
result ;  I  shall  admit  at  once,  that  my  manner  of  contemplating 
the  subject  is  open  to  a  very  grave  objection.  For  it  is  very 
manifest,  that  the  idea  which  inspired  men  entertained  on  this 
subject  led  them  to  attach  the  highest  importance  to  prayer,  and 
to  engage  in  the  duty  with  great  fervency. 

The  opinion  now  to  be  examined  is  bi-iefly  this,  that  the  prayer 
of  faith  is,  without  any  exception,  successful  in  obtaining  the  par- 
ticular favors  which  are  sought,  whatever  those  favors  may  he, 

VOL.  III.  11 


122  PRAYER. 

awe?  whether  they  relate  to  ourselves  or  others.  As  to  the  nature 
of  faith  —  according  to  those  who  hold  to  the  opinion  above 
stated  —  the  faith  which  should  be  exercised  in  prayer,  is  a 
strong.,  co7ifident  belief  that  the  very  blessing  prayed  for  ivill  be 
granted  —  a  fall  persuasion  that  the  particular  thing  desired  mil 
be  obtained.  According  to  this  notion,  if  Christians  pray  in  faith 
for  this  or  that  particular  favor,  they  will  certainly  receive  it. 
And  if  it  is  not  received,  it  is  because  it  was  not  sought  in  faith; 
that  is,  with  a  co7ifident  belief  that  it  ivould  be  granted. 

This  opinion  is  liable  to  serious  objections.  It  evidently 
involves  an  idea  of  faith,  which  is  inadmissible.  True  faith, 
so  far  as  the  present  subject  is  concerned,  rests  on  the  veracity 
of  God  in  regard  to  his  promises.  Now  it  must  be  admitted  by 
all  that  God  will  certainly  fulfil  his  promises,  taken  in  the  right 
sense.  To  believe  that  God  will  fulfil  his  promises  in  a  sense 
which  he  never  intended,  would  be  a  great  mistake.  It  then 
becomes  a  question  of  primary  importance,  how  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  promises  which  God  has  made,  in  regard  to  his  answer- 
ing our  prayers.  Take  a  particular  promise ;  and  if  you  can  find 
out  the  exact  meaning  of  that  promise,  you  will  find  out  exactly 
what  you  are,  in  that  case,  to  believe.  For  doubtless  you  are  to 
believe  in  the  true  sense  of  a  promise,  not  in  a  false  sense.  Matt. 
7:  7,  8,  "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  to  you. — For  every  one  that 
asketh,  receiveth."  Did  Christ  mean  that  this  promise  should  be 
understood  in  the  most  unlimited  sense  —  that  is,  that  every 
single  thing  without  exception,  which  his  disciples  should  at  any 
time  ask,  should  be  given  to  them  ?  This  could  not  be  the  case  ; 
for  when  they  asked  that  the  kingdom,  that  is,  as  they  intended, 
that  temporal  dominion  might  be  restored  to  Israel,  the  favor  was 
not  granted.  The  fact  was,  they  mistook  the  meaning  of  God's 
promises  respecting  the  Jews,  and  the  request  they  made  under 
the  influence  of  that  mistake  could  not  be  granted ;  for  surely 
God  will  not  turn  aside  from  the  plan  of  his  righteous  administrar- 
tion,  to  comply  with  the  mistaken  desires  of  his  people.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  text  under  consideration.  The  promise  to 
those  who  "ask"  and  "seek,"  is  to  be  understood  not  in  an 


PRATER.  123 

absolute  but  in  a  qualified  sense.  And  if  we  ask  any  favor  con- 
trary to  the  true  meaning  of  the  promise,  or  to  the  scheme  of 
God's  providence,  the  favor  is  not  to  be  expected.  How  ear- 
nestly soever  any  one  may  contend  for  the  highest  and  most  abso- 
lute sense  of  the  promise  before  us,  he  will  find  it  necessary  to 
admit  qualifications.  The  words  of  the  promise  are,  "  Ask,  and 
it  shall  be  given  you."  Does  it  mean  that,  if  Ave  ask  God  to  give 
us  a  large  estate,  he  will  do  it  ?  Does  it  mean  that,  if  we  ask 
God  to  give  us  at  once  as  much  knowledge  as  Newton  or  Paul 
possessed,  or  to  inspire  us  with  the  poetic  genius  of  Shakspeare, 
or  with  the  eloquence  of  Whitefield,  he  will  bestow  such  a  favor  ? 
Does  it  mean  that,  if  we  pray  God  to  exempt  us  from  dying,  or  to 
continue  to  us  a  useful  life  for  a  thousand  years,  he  will  grant  our 
request  ?  Does  it  mean,  that  if  we  should  pray  God  to  make  us 
swift  as  an  eagle  to  go  to  difierent  parts  of  the  world  with  the 
message  of  divine  mercy,  he  would  answer  our  prayer  ?  No. 
The  promise  must  be  taken  with  limitations.  And  this  is  true  of 
every  promise  of  God,  that  he  will  hear  and  answer  prayer.  If 
we  would  know  the  mind  of  God,  we  must  take  his  word  as  a 
whole.  No  single  text  can  give  us  all  the  information  we  need. 
What  might  appear  at  first  view  to  be  the  sense  of  a  passage, 
may  not  be  the  true  sense,  but  may  require  to  be  explained  or 
modified  by  other  parts  of  Scripture.  This  principle  of  interpre- 
tation is  of  constant  use  ;  and  without  it,  we  shall  be  Ukely  to 
embrace  the  most  absurd  and  contradictory  opinions. 

It  is  also  true,  that  we  are  in  many  cases  to  make  out  the  ex- 
act meaning  of  the  declarations  of  God's  word  by  attending  to  the 
course  of  his  providence.  His  providence  is  in  accordance  with 
his  word,  and  they  often  help  to  explain  each  other.  The  disci- 
ples of  Christ  inferred  from  certain  passages  in  the  Scriptures, 
that  the  Messiah  would  not  die.  This  mistake  of  theirs  was  cor- 
rected by  the  events  Avhich  took  place.  Again.  Suppose  they 
had  understood  his  predictions  recorded  in  Matt.  24,  as  implying 
that  he  would  come  to  raise  the  dead  and  judge  the  world  within 
thirty  years.  As  he  did  not  so  come,  they  must  have  learned 
their  mistake,  and  must  have  interpreted  those  predictions  in 


124  PRAYEE. 

agreement  -with  the  course  of  the  divine  administration.  In 
many  instances,  Christians  have  been  constrained  to  modify  and 
sometimes  entirely  to  change  their  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of 
particular  predictions,  by  observing  that  events  take  place  differ- 
ently from  the  opinion  they  first  entertained.  And  so  they  must 
continue  to  do,  whenever  there  is  occasion  for  it.  And  there  may 
be  occasion  for  it  in  regard  to  the  question  so  often  agitated  at 
this  day,  whether  the  Jews  are  to  return  to  Palestine.  If  they 
do  not  return,  those  who  understand  the  promises  to  mean  that 
they  will  return,  will  find  it  necessary  to  change  their  opinion. 
And  if  they  do  return,  those  who  have  judged  differently  will 
correct  <Aeir  mistake.  All  will  finally  nnderstand  the  predictions 
alike.  Come  now  to  the  subject  before  us  ;  and  suppose  that  we 
understand  the  promise  of  God  to  hear  prayer  in  the  most  abso- 
lute sense,  and  that  with  this  understanding,  we  pray  God  to  raise 
from  the  dead  a  beloved  parent  or  child,  now  lying  a  lifeless  corpse 
before  us,  verily  believing  that  what  we  desire  will  take  place. 
WUl  not  our  experience  show  that  the  meaning  of  the  promise  is 
not  what  we  supposed  ?  If  those  who  take  the  promise  of  God 
to  hear  prayer  in  the  unlimited,  absolute  sense,  will  look  at  the 
case  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  whose  earnest  prayer  to  God  was  that 
the  Israelites  might  be  saved,  and  will  notice  the  fact  that  the 
favor  he  asked  was  not  granted  ;  they  must  either  deny  that  Paul 
prayed  aright,  or  must  acknowledge  that  they  labored  under  a 
mistake  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  divine  promise.  If  then  we 
would  form  a  right  conception  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  we  must 
carefully  attend  to  the  course  of  divine  providence,  and  to  the 
whole  compass  of  revelation.  In  this  way  we  shall  come  to  the 
conclusion,  that  God's  promise  to  answer  prayer  is  to  be  under- 
stood with  the  qualifications  and  restrictions  which  have  been  sug- 
gested, and  which  are  not  only  reasonable  in  themselves,  and 
correspondent  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  with  the  expe- 
rience of  the  church  in  all  ages,  but  perfectly  agreeable  to  the 
best  feelings  of  Christians. 

I  said  that  the  misconception  referred  to  respecting  the  efficacy 
of  prayer,  involves  an  inadmissible  idea  of  the  nature  of  faith, 
particularly  that  which  is  exercised  in  prayer. 


PRAYER.  •  125 

Let  us  examine  this  subject,  and  see  what  are  the  teachings  of 
the  inspired  writers. 

"  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God ;  for  he  that 
Cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  the  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  himy  Heb.  11:  6.  Here  all  is 
plain.  We  must  believe  in  God,  —  the  true  God,  a  Being  of  infi- 
nite perfection.  Of  course  we  must  believe  in  all  the  declara- 
tions of  his  word,  particularly  in  all  his  promises,  rightly  under- 
stood. We  must  believe  that  he  is  '*  the  rewarder  of  them  that 
diligently  seek  him."  The  inspired  writer  does  not  say,  we  must 
believe  that  God  will  bestow  upon  those  who  come  to  him  every 
particular  favor  which  they  at  any  time  ask,  but  that  he  will  re- 
ward them.  He  may,  in  many  instances,  reward  them,  by  grant- 
ing them  other  and  better  favors,  than  those  which  they  ask. 
We  must  believe  that  he  will  fulfil  his  promises  to  answer  prayer 
according  to  their  true  intent.  And  if  they  are  to  be  understood 
with  such  limitations,  as  have  been  pointed  out ;  then  we  are  to 
believe  that  they  will  be  performed  under  those  very  limitations. 

But  the  Umitations  and  exceptions  which  I  have  named,  do  not 
relate  to  the  blessings  which  are  essetitial  to  salvation.  It  is  in 
regard  to  other  things,  which  may  or  may  not  be  best  for  us,  that 
the  notion  of  faith  which  we  are  considering,  is  evidently  incor- 
rect. And  surely  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  a  faith  which  is  not 
warranted  by  the  word  or  the  providence  of  God,  will  procure, 
without  any  failure,  the  very  things  we  desire.  It  would  be  more 
reasonable  to  think,  that  a  faith,  thus  overstepping  its  proper 
bounds,  and  waxing  bold  and  confident  in  respect  to  things  which 
God  has  reserved  in  his  own  power,  must  be  regarded  with  disap- 
probation. 

The  blessings  of  forgiveness  and  sanctification,  and  all  the 
blessings  involved  in  a  free  and  full  salvation,  are  unquestionably 
secured  by  the  promises  of  God,  to  all  true  worshippers.  And  if 
we  have  faith,  we  shall  believe,  without  any  doubt,  that  God  will 
reward  those  who  diligently  seek  him,  by  the  bestowment  of  all 
these  spiritual  blessings.  It  is  certainly  impUed  in  the  promises 
of  God,  that  the  pardon  of  sin,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with 

11* 


126  PRAYER. 

all  his  precious  fruits  in  tlie  present  world,  and  eternal  life  in 
heaven,  shall  he  the  portion  of  every  believer.  The  bestowment 
of  all  this  good,  in  God's  own  time  and  manner,  will,  we  know, 
be  consistent  with  the  principles  of  revelation,  and  with  the  es- 
tablished methods  of  the  divine  government.  It  Avould  plainly 
contravene  the  principles  which  infinite  wisdom  has  expressly 
established,  if  any  believer  should  fail  of  receiving  any  part  of  this 
complete  salvation.  Here  all  is  certain.  And  here  we  find  all 
the  encouragement  to  faith  and  prayer,  which  can  reasonably  be 
desired.  The  promise  of  God  that  he  wiU  bestow  these  spiritual 
blessings  in  answer  to  believing  prayer,  is  to  be  understood  in  the 
most  extensive  sense.  He  will  do  even  more  "  than  we  ask  or 
think."  No  limits  are  admitted,  except  as  to  the  time  and  manner 
of  accomplishing  the  promise. 

We  must  then  regulate  our  faith  in  regard  to  the  efficacy  of 
prayer  by  the  true  meaning  of  God's  promises, —  considering  those 
promises  to  be  either  with  or  without  restriction,  as  the  general 
current  of  Scripture,  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  the  obvious 
principles  of  the  divine  government  require.  Confidently  to  be- 
lieve that  the  very  favors  we  ask  will  be  granted  is,  in  some  cases, 
the  exercise  of  a  just  and  Scriptural  faith.  But  in  other  cases, 
to  believe  this  would  be  a  wide  departure  from  the  true  sense  of 
the  promises,  and  from  the  experience  of  God's  people  in  all  ages. 
And  if  we  should  attempt  to  carry  into  practice  the  notion  of  the 
•efficacy  of  prayer  which  I  am  controverting,  we  should  involve 
ourselves  in  endless  difficulties  and  perplexities.  We  should  be 
obliged  to  put  an  unnatural  force  upon  our  own  minds  in  order  to 
bring  ourselves  to  believe  what  we  have  no  grounds  to  believe ; 
and  after  all  we  should  fail  of  exercising  the  faith  we  labored  after, 
unless  we  should  close  our  eyes  against  the  light  of  divine  truth. 

What  a  blessed  relief  from  all  this  confusion  and  disquietude  of 
mind  shall  we  experience,  if  we  have  the  faith  which  the  Scripture 
represents  as  essential  to  acceptable  prayer  —  beUeving  that  Grod 
is,  and  that  he  is  the  rewarder  of  them  who  diligently  seek  him. 
This  faith,  fixing,  as  it  does,  on  the  eternal  existence  and  infinite 
perfection  of  God,  and  on  his  promises  to  those  who  seek  him,  be- 


PRATER.  127 

gets  freedom,  fervency  and  perseverance  in  prayer,  combined  with 
the  spirit  of  humility  and  submission. 

The  nature  of  the  faith  which  is  to  be  exercised  in  prayer,  may 
be  very  clearly  illustrated  by  adverting  to  some  of  the  examples 
of  it  which  are  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels.  Take  then,  the 
case  of  the  Centurion,  who  besought  Christ  to  heal  his  servant, 
and  who  was  spoken  of  by  Christ  as  having  great  faith.  But  what 
was  his  faith,  and  how  was  it  manifested  ?  In  the  first  place,  he 
sent  Jewish  Elders  to  request  Christ  to  come  and  heal  his  servant. 
By  this  he  showed  his  confidence  in  Christ  as  able  to  effect  a  cure. 
But  this  confidence  was  more  clearly  manifested  afterwards.  For 
while  Jesus  was  coming  towards  his  house,  he  sent  friends  to  him, 
saying,  "  trouble  not  thyself;  for  I  am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst 
enter  under  my  roof;  wherefore  neither  thought  I  myself  worthy 
to  come  unto  thee  ;  but  say  in  a  word,  and  my  servant  shall  be 
healed."  And  to  show  how  strong  was  his  confidence  in  Christ's 
power  to  heal  by  a  word,  he  referred  to  his  own  authority  over 
his  soldiers,  who  rendered  him  an  instant  obedience.  In  this  way 
the  Centurion  manifested  his  '"''great  faiths  It  is  not  said,  he 
beUeved  and  certainly  knew  beforehand  that  Jesus  would  heal  his 
servant,  as  though  he  had  the  gift  of  prophecy.  But,  he  believed 
that  Jesus  had  power  to  heal,  and  power  to  do  it  by  a  single  word,, 
though  he  was  at  a  distance  from  the  sick  person.  When  the 
Centurion  applied  to  Jesus,  he,  of  course,  behoved  him  to  be  very 
merciful,  and  hoped  to  obtain  the  favor  he  sought.  But  his  great 
faith  was  his  great  confidence  in  Ohrisfs  power  to  heal. 

Take  another  instance.  Two  blind  men  cried  to  Jesus,  saying, 
"  Thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  us."  Jesus  said  to  them, 
"  believe  ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this?"  He  did  not  ask  them, 
whether  they  believed  that  he  certainly  would  restore  their  sight, 
but  whether  they  behoved  that  he  was  able  to  do  this.  They  an- 
swered, yea,  Lord.  This  was  their  faith.  At  another  time  they 
brought  a  paralytic  to  Jesus.  And  not  being  able  to  come  near 
him  for  the  press,  they  uncovered  the  roof  of  the  house,  and  let 
down  the  bed  whereon  the  paralytic  lay.  "  When  Jesus  saw  their 
faith ;  i.  e.  when  he  saw  from  their  conduct  what  confidence  they 


128  PRAYER. 

liad  in  his  power  to  heal,  and  what  hope  too  of -obtaining  the  bless- 
ing desired,  he  said  to  the  sick  man,  "  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee 
—  arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk." 

Again.  A  man  brought  to  Jesus  his  son,  who  had  a  dumb 
spirit.  After  describing  the  distressing  case  he  said,  "  if  thou 
eanst  do  any  thing,  have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us."  This 
led  Christ  to  say  —  "  if  thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible 
to  him  that  belie veth ;"  implying  that  the  man  was  wanting  in 
faith,  inasmuch  as  he  had  not  perfect  confidence  in  Christ's  power 
to  grant  the  favor  desired.  "  And  straightway  the  father  cried 
out  with  tears  —  Lord,  I  beheve ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief." 
Upon  this  Jesus  granted  his  request. 

The  same  principle  is  apparent  in  the  case  of  Jairus,  who  fell  at 
the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  said,  "  my  little  daughter  lieth  at  the  point 
of  death  ;  come  and  lay  thy  hand  upon  her  that  she  may  be  heal- 
ed, and  she  shall  hve."  This  was  his  faith.  After  some  time, 
while  Jesus  was  on  his  way  to  the  house  of  Jairus,  some  came  and 
said,  "  thy  daughter  is  dead  ;  why  troublest  thou  the  master  any 
farther  ?"  But  Jesus  said  to  Jairus,  "  be  not  afraid,  onli/  be- 
lieve'^ — have  the  same  confidence  in  me  now  when  the  child  is 
dead,  as  thou  hadst  before  when  she  was  sick.  The  conclusion  of 
the  story  shows  that  he  had  the  same  confidence,  and  that  Christ 
made  it  manifest  that  his  confidence  was  not  misplaced. 

These  examples  show,  that  the  faith  of  those  who  applied  to 
Jesus,  consisted  essentially  in  this,  that  they  had  full  confidence  in 
him  as  able  to  do  all  that  was  desired,  and  such  confidence  too  in 
bis  mercy,  as  led  them  freely  to  present  their  requests  to  him,  and 
to  cherish  the  hope  that  they  should  obtain  the  blessings  which  they 
sought. 

The  views  which  I  have  exhibited  might  be  still  further  illus- 
trated by  referring  to  the  example,  in  which  Christ  charged  his 
disciples  with  being  deficient  in  faith.  What  he  inculcated  upon 
them  was,  such  an  entire  trust  in  God  in  regard  to  their  wants, 
their  trials,  their  duties  and  their  dangers,  as  would  prevent  anxie- 
ty and  fear,  and  give  them  tranquillity  and  peace. 

It  must  now,  I  think,  be  obvious  to  you,  what  is  the  faith  which 


PRAYER.  129 

we  should  exercise  in  prayer.  We  should  believe  in  the  being, 
the  perfections,  the  government,  and  the  word  of  God.  We 
should  have  a  cordial  trust  in  him  in  all  respects,  particularly  in 
regard  to  the  subject  of  prayer,  whether  God  has  actually  promis- 
ed to  bestow  the  particular  favors  we  desire,  or  not.  If  he  has 
really  promised  to  bestow  the  very  favors  which  we  ask  in  prayer, 
we  are  to  believe  that  he  will  bestow  them,  and  that  he  will  do  it 
in  the  wisest  and  best  manner.  If  God  has  not  promised  to  be- 
stow the  very  favors  we  ask,  then  we  are  to  trust  in  his  infinite 
wisdom  and  goodness,  believing  that  he  is  able  to  bestow  the  favors 
sought,  and  that  he  will  do  it  if  it  is  best.  And  if  he  does  not 
bestow  them,  we  are  to  trust  in  him  still  —  to  trust  in  him,  though 
he  deny  us  the  particular  favors  sought,  and  visit  us  with  the 
severest  afflictions.     This  is  faith. 


LECTURE  XCVIII. 


THE  PRAYER  OF  FAITH  FURTHER  CONSIDERED. 

The  subject  which  we  have  had  under  consideration,  and  which 
I  wish  still  further  to  pursue,  is  the  prayer  of  faith.  And  I  pro- 
ceed in  this  discussion  with  a  deep  interest,  because  I  am  persua- 
ded that  right  views  on  the  subject  will  promote  confidence  in  God, 
importunity  in  prayer,  and  all  the  pleasures  and  benefits  of  fervent 
piety. 

The  opinion  which  I  have  considered  as  in  some  respects  a  de- 
parture from  the  truth,  is,  that  the  prayer  of  faith  is  always  efficor 
eious  in  obtaining  the  particular  favors  which  are  sought ;  and 
that  those  who  pray  in  faith,  assuredly  believe  that  they  shall  ob- 
tain the  very  things  they  ask,  whatever  they  may  be.  I  have 
already  endeavored  to  show,  by  several  considerations,  that  this 
view  of  the  subject  is  liable  to  serious  objections. 

But  to  show  still  more  clearly  the  mistake  of  those  who  maintain 
this  opinion,  I  shall  offer  some  additional  suggestions. 

I  must  say  then,  that  the  distinction  which  their  scheme  implies, 
between  the  prayer  of  faith  and  other  acceptable  prayer,  is  with- 
out foundation.  Every  acceptable  prayer  is  a  prayer  of  faith. 
"  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  For  he  that  com- 
eth  to  God,  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  the  rewarder 
of  them  who  diligently  seek  him."  Hence  it  appears  that  all  ac- 
ceptable prayer  is  offered  up  in  faith.  The  distinction,  then,  has 
no  foundation. 

Consider  further  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  prayer  is  en- 


PRATER.  131 

titled  to  an  answer  on  account  of  other  qualities,  as  well  as  on 
account  of  faith.  "  The  righteous  cry,  and  the  Lord  heareth." 
"  The  Lord  is  nigh  unto  them  that  call  upon  him  in  truths  "  The 
Lord  will  fulfil  the  desire  of  them  ihdXfear  him."  "God  forget- 
eth  not  the  cry  of  the  humble.^^  "  Whatsoever  we  ask,  we  re- 
ceive, because  we  keep  his  commandments.^^  According  to  these 
passages,  righteousness,  truth,  fear,  humility,  and  obedience  afford 
as  real  a  reason  to  expect  an  answer  to  prayer,  as  faith.  These 
qualities  of  prayer  do  indeed  imply  faith,  rightly  understood. 
But  is  it  true,  that  every  man  who  is  righteous,  humble  and  obe- 
dient, has  the  kind  of  faith  on  which  I  have  animadverted  ?  I 
ask  too,  whether  every  prayer  which  has  been  offered  up  by  the 
righteous  man,  by  the  man  who  believes  in  God,  and  who  is  hum- 
ble and  obedient  —  whether  every  such  prayer  has  been  answered 
by  the  bestowment  of  the  very  favors  which  have  been  sought  ? 
What  is  the  fact  ?  Take  the  prayer  which  Jesus  taught  his  disci- 
ples to  offer  up,  and  which  all  Christians  have  offered  up,  times 
without  number,  from  age  to  age.  Has  every  petition  contained 
in  this  prayer  been  fully  granted,  according  to  the  desires  of  de- 
vout worshippers  ?  One  of  these  petitions  is,  "  Thy  will  be  done 
on  earth,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven."  Has  this  prayer,  which  be- 
lievers have  presented  to  God  so  many  millions  of  times,  been 
successful  in  bringing  men  universally  to  perfect  obedience  ?  If 
not,  the  opinion  under  consideration  is  not  true.  Indeed  it  would 
not  be  true  if  any  Christian  had  ever  offered  up  this  petition,  even 
once,  with  a  believing  heart.  For  the  opinion  is,  that  every  prayer 
offered  up  in  faith,  will  secure  the  very  thing  requested.  So  that 
if  all  Christians,  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  had  failed  to  offer  up 
this  prayer  in  sincerity  and  faith,  with  the  exception  of  only  one, 
yet  if  that  one  Christian  had  offered  it  up,  even  once,  in  a  right 
manner,  the  opinion  above  mentioned  could  not  be  true ;  because 
the  world  has  been  and  is,  to  so  great  an  extent,  in  a  state  of 
disobedience. 

You  may  perhaps  say,  that  the  will  of  God  named  in  this 
prayer,  is  not  his  preceptive  will,  or  his  law,  but  his  decretive  will, 
or  his  purpose,  and  that,  in  this  sense,  the  prayer  of  Christians 


182  PRAYER. 

has  been  exactly  answered.  My  reply  is,  that  if  the  will  of  God 
is  so  understood,  it  has  indeed  been  done  on  earth,  as  in  heaven ; 
and  this  would  have  been  the  case  if  it  had  never  been  made  the 
subject  of  prayer,  and  if  there  had  never  been  any  Christian  to 
pray.  And  according  to  this  meaning  of  the  word,  there  would 
be  just  as  much  propriety  in  praying,  thy  will  he  done  in  heaven, 
as  it  is  done  on  earth,  as  in  praying,  "  thy  will  be  done  on  earth 
as  in  heaven." 

Some  may  possibly  say,  that  when  Christians  offer  up  the  peti- 
tion referred  to,  they  do  not  intend  to  pray,  that  God's  will,  that 
is,  his  law,  may  be  completely  and  universally  obeyed  at  present, 
but  that  it  may  be  obeyed  at  a  future  day,  when,  according  to  the 
teachings  of  the  prophets,  all  men  shall  serve  God.  But  I  appeal 
to  facts.  Do  not  Christians  pray,  and  do  they  not  mean  to  pray, 
that  all  men  now  living,  may  be  made  holy  and  obedient  ?  "Where 
is  the  good  man  who,  surveying  a  world  of  sinners,  and  consider- 
ing the  preciousness  of  their  souls  and  the  abounding  grace  of 
Christ,  does  not  sincerely  desire  their  salvation,  and  does  not  ex- 
press his  desire  in  fervent  prayer  ?  Such  prayer  for  the  salvation 
of  men  —  of  all  men,  so  far  as  they  are  contemplated  —  grows 
out  of  the  Christian's  character.  It  is  the  natural  operation  of 
his  benevolence.  And  such  has  always  been  the  practice  of  the 
people  of  God.  And  when  an  Apostle  says  he  does  not  enjoin 
prayer  for  those  who  have  committed  the  sin  unto  death,  it  is  plain- 
ly implied  that  prayer  is  to  be  offered  up  for  all  others.  —  Besides, 
if  it  is  not  right  to  pray  for  all  men,  now  living,  it  cannot  be  right 
to  pray  for  a  considerable  part  of  them,  nor  for  any  part,  except 
those  who  are  chosen  to  salvation.  But  how  can  we  know  who 
those  are,  before  they  are  converted  ?  It  must  then  be  improper 
to  pray  for  any  sinners,  or  to  make  any  efiForts  for  their  salvation, 
imless  we  know  that  they  are  to  be  saved. 

But  I  have  said  enough  on  this  point.  It  is  the  acknowledged 
duty  of  Christians,  and  it  has  been  their  universal  practice,  to 
pray  that  God's  will  may  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven. 
But  this  prayer  has  never  yet  been  accomplished  to  a  thousandth 
part  of  the  extent  to  which  their  benevolent  desires  have  reached. 


PRAYER.  133 

There  are  other  facts  still,  which  bear  on  the  subject.  Chris- 
tians pray  God  to  forgive  and  bless  their  enemies.  Jesus  prayed 
for  the  forgiveness  of  those  who  crucified  him,  and  Stephen  for 
the  forgiveness  of  those  who  stoned  him.  Persecuted  Christians 
have  always  prayed  for  their  persecutors.  Now  we  must  con- 
clude, either  that  all  those  for  wdaom  Christ  prayed,  and  those  for 
whom  his  followers  have  prayed,  have  been  forgiven,  or  else  that 
true  and  acceptable  prayer  has  been  offered  up  to  God  for  blessings 
which  have  not  been  granted. 

Christians,  in  imitation  of  the  Apostle,  pray  that  the  followers 
of  Christ  may  be  freed  from  all  sin,  and  be  perfect  in  every  good 
work.     But  have  these  requests  been  fully  accomplished  ? 

And  are  the  prayers  which  believers  offer  up  for  themselves, 
fully  answered  at  present  ?  They  beseech  God  to  sanctify  them 
throughout,  in  body,  soul  and  spirit,  —  to  make  them  holy  as  he  is 
holy.  But  have  Christians  in  this  life  ever  been  as  holy  as  they 
have  prayed  that  they  might  be  ?  If  you  say,  that  Christians 
only  pray  that  they  may  be  fully  sanctified  idti/iiateli/,  but  not  at 
present,  then  I  must  leave  the  decision  with  Christians  themselves. 
Do  they  not  at  times  earnestly  desire  and  pray  that  they  may  now 
be  delivered  from  all  sin,  without  exception,  and  may  be  complete- 
ly conformed  to  the  divine  will  ?  Can  it  be  that  believers  in  a 
right  state  of  mind,  address  themselves  to  God  in  such  a  manner 
as  this :  —  Lord,  I  prai/  that  I  may  he  perfectly  cleansed  from 
sin  at  a  future  time,  but  not  now  —  that  I  may  completely  bear 
the  image  of  Christ  when  I  arrive  at  heaven,  but  not  while  I  abide 
on  earth?  It  is,  I  apprehend,  implied  in  the  very  character  of 
the  regenerate,  that  they  hate  all  sin,  and  sincerely  desire  and 
pray  to  be  completely  holy.  But  they  always,  during  the  present 
life,  fall  short  of  that  which  they  desire  to  attain.  What  thej 
would,  they  do  not ;  and  what  they  would  not,  that  they  do. 

You  will  observe  too,  that  the  people  of  God  seem  never  to 
have  been  surprised  or  discouraged  by  finding,  that  the  particular 
things  they  have  sought  in  prayer,  have  not  been  at  once  fully 
granted.  For  example  ;  they  have  prayed  that  the  blessings  of 
salvation  might  be  granted  to  all  men,  and  the  world  be  filled  with 

VOL.  III.  12 


134  PRAYER. 

the  glory  of  God.  And  though  they  have  continually  seen  that 
this  great  work  has  not  been  actually  accomplished,  they  have, 
from  generation  to  generation,  prayed  for  it  still.  And  thus  they 
pray  now ;  and  thus  they  will  continue  to  pray,  so  long  as  they 
have  benevolence  to  man  and  faith  in  God,  although  the  work 
which  is  so  dear  to  their  hearts,  is  still  delayed.  The  same  is 
true  respecting  the  prayers  of  Christians  for  themselves.  They 
constantly  pray  that  God  would  take  away  all  iniquity,  and  make 
them  complete  in  all  the  will  of  God.  But  they  find  themselves 
still  imperfect.  Their  prayers  are  not,  at  present,  fully  effica- 
cious. This,  however,  does  not  prevent  them  from  continuing  to 
pray.  Nor  do  they  infer  from  this,  that  they  have  not  prayed  in 
sincerity  and  faith,  or  that  their  prayers  are  in  vain.  They  cher- 
ish the  pleasing  thought  that  God  does  hear  and  accept  their 
prayers,  and  does,  in  a  measure,  answer  them  even  now ;  and 
that,  although  he  does  not  at  present  give  them  all  the  good  they 
ask,  he  will  do  it  ultimately.  And  by  diligently  searching  the 
Scriptures,  and  by  the  help  of  experience,  they  come  to  see  and 
feel,  that  it  is  altogether  suitable  for  them  to  labor  and  pray  for 
perfect  sanctification  as  long  as  they  live,  although,  for  the  pres- 
ent, their  prayers  procure  only  a  part  of  the  good  which  they 
seek.  And  under  the  guidance  of  that  wisdom  which  is  from 
above,  they  at  length  view  the  subject  in  such  a  light,  that  their 
not  obtaining  at  present  a  complete  accomplishment  of  their  de- 
vout desires,  instead  of  operating  as  a  discouragement,  increases 
the  fervor  and  importunity  of  their  prayers. 

Such  being  my  view  of  the  subject,  it  has  appeared  to  me  a 
singular  fact,  and  one  not  easily  accounted  for,  that  any  sober- 
minded  and  intelligent  Christians  can  retain  the  opinion  which  I 
have  endeavored  to  confute.  How  can  they  set  aside  their  own 
experience,  and  the  experience  of  others,  and  the  current  repre- 
sentations of  Scripture  ?  Are  they  not  conscious,  that  many  of 
their  most  fervent  prayers,  —  prayers  in  which  they  feel  the 
strongest  confidence  in  God,  do  not  secure  the  particular  favors 
they  desire  ?  And  do  they  not  see  that  this  is  the  case  with  the 
best  Christians  around  them,  and  that  it  was  so  with  those  whose 


PRAYER. 


135 


history  is  given  in  the  Scriptures  ?  How  then  can  they  hold  to 
the  opinion,  that  the  promise  of  God  secures  to  them  all  the  par- 
ticular favors,  whether  of  one  kind  or  another,  which  they  ask  in 
prayer  ?  Do  pious  parents  and  ministers  adopt  the  conclusion, 
that  all  the  prayers  which  they  offer  up  for  themselves,  for  their 
children,  or  for  others  around  them,  and  which  do  not  secure  the 
very  favors  desired,  are  unbelieving  and  unacceptable  prayers  ? 
In  what  gloom  and  despondency  would  such  a  conclusion  involve 
them  !  The  real  fact  seems  to  be,  that  those  who  hold  to  the 
opinion  on  which  I  have  so  freely  remarked,  have  formed  the  habit 
of  overlooking  those  parts  of  Scripture  and  experience  which 
stand  against  their  favorite  opinion,  while  those  things  in  God's 
■word  and  providence,  which  appear  favorable  to  their  opinion,  are 
carefully  treasured  up,  and  are  made  the  exclusive  ground  of 
their  reasoning  and  judgment. 

One  of  the  arguments  which  such  persons  rely  upon,  in  support 
of  their  opinion,  is,  that  many  prayers,  which  have  been  offered 
up  with  the  kind  of  faith  referred  to,  have  been  successful ;  for 
example  ;  that  when  ministers  and  Christians  pray  for  a  revival 
of  religion,  with  a  strong  belief  that  it  will  soon  take  place,  it 
does  in  many  remarkable  instances  actually  come  to  pass. 

Now  I  readily  acknowledge  that,  in  some  instances,  a  revival 
of  religion  is  brought  about  in  answer  to  such  prayers.  But  it  is 
equally  manifest  that,  in  other  instances,  those  who  pray  for  a 
revival  of  religion  in  the  manner  intended,  are  disappointed. 
Nay,  the  extent  of  the  good  obtained  is  never  equal  to  their 
devout  desires.  Now  why  do  they  not  see  that  these  instances 
weigh  as  much  against  their  opinion,  as  the  former  do  in  favor  of 
it  ?  Indeed,  as  it  is  their  opinion  that  the  prayer  of  faith  always 
secures  the  very  blessing  sought ;  any  instances  of  failure  clearly 
disprove  that  opinion. 

The  fact  should  also  be  mentioned,  that  a  revival  of  religion 
often  takes  place  in  answer  to  prayers  which  are  not  offered  up 
with  the  confident  belief  referred  to.  In  instances  too  many  to 
be  numbered,  sinners  have  been  converted  and  the  church  in- 
creased, where  ministers  and  Christians  have  labored  and  prayed, 


136  PRAYER. 

with  heartj  trust  in  the  power  and  mercj  of  God,  but  without  a 
specific  and  confident  belief  that  the  very  thing  they  desire  will  cer- 
tainly be  granted.  And  it  is,  I  think,  true,  that  Christians  gene- 
rally prevail  in  prayer  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  their  desires 
for  the  good  sought,  and  the  fervor  and  importunity  which  they 
exercise  in  their  petitions  for  it,  rather  than  in  consequence  of  a 
confident  belief  that  the  very  thing  prayed  for  will  be  granted. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  God  looks  upon  the  former  as  of  higher 
value,  than  upon  the  latter. 

But  it  can,  I  think,  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  that  minis- 
ters and  Christians  often  pray  for  a  revival  of  religion  with  a 
somewhat  confident  expectation  that  it  will  take  place,  and  an 
expectation  which  is  fully  realized,  in  perfect  consistency  with  the 
views  I  have  endeavored  to  defend.  It  may  be  that,  in  the  cases 
referred  to,  ministers  and  Christians  have  sotne  obvious  reasons  to 
hope  and  expect  that  there  will  shortly  be  a  revival  of  religion. 
We  are  taught  by  experience,  in  connection  with  various  intimar 
tions  of  Scripture,  that  certain  things  are  generally  precursors  of 
a  revival,  just  as  certain  things  are  generally  precursors  of  the 
conversion  of  individual  sinners.  Now  if  Christians  can  fix  their 
eye  upon  any  of  the  common  signs  of  an  approaching  revival ;  it 
is  just  as  reasonable  that  they  should  hope  for  that  event,  as  that 
they  should  hope  for  a  shower  of  rain  when  there  are  all  the 
common  signs  of  rain.  Such  a  hope,  if  it  results  from  sober 
experience  and  observation,  is  a  matter  of  judgment  —  a  rational 
conclusion.  And  if  the  indications  of  an  extraordinary  work  of 
the  Spirit  are  very  clear,  it  is  proper  that  the  hope  of  Christians 
should  rise  to  expectation,  and  should  animate  them  to  more  fer- 
vent prayer  and  more  diUgent  labor,  for  the  accomplishment  of 
the  expected  event.  If  this  is  what  is  meant  by  praying  in  faith 
for  a  revival  of  religion,  I  have  no  objection.  There  is  no  mis- 
take, except  in  the  signification  of  a  word.  It  is  praying  with 
confidence  in  God  —  with  love  to  souls  —  and  with  a  strong  hope 
and  expectation,  resulting  from  those  things  which  have  been 
found  to  be  indications  of  a  revival,  that  such  a  desirable  event 
will  soon  occur.     Prayer,  ofiered  up  in  such  circumstances  and  in 


PRAYER.  137 

such  a  manner,  is  no  doubt  likely  to  be  eflBcacious  in  bringing  for- 
ward a  revival  of  religion.  And  we  ought  to  render  thanks  to 
God,  that,  in  so  many  instances,  such  prayer  has  been  followed  by 
a  glorious  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  what  shall  we  say  if  Christians,  independently  of  anything 
in  themselves  or  in  others  which  indicates  an  approaching  revival, 
should,  in  some  unaccountable  way,  work  up  their  minds  to  a 
confident  belief  that  a  revival  will  shortly  take  place  ?  Would 
not  this  be  as  unreasonable  as  for  a  man,  in  time  of  a  drought,  to 
work  up  his  mind  to  a  confident  expectation  of  rain,  when  there 
are  no  signs  of  it  ?  And  yet  Christians,  thus  misguided  in  judg- 
ment, may  confide  in  the  mercy  of  God,  and  may  love  the  souls 
of  men,  and  may  offer  up  prayers,  with  cries  and  tears,  for  the 
conversion  of  sinners  ;  and,  in  all  this,  they  may  be  graciously 
accepted.  And,  in  many  instances,  God  who  hears  prayer,  and 
who  passes  by  the  imperfections  and  mistakes  of  his  people  and 
approves  of  all  that  is  holy,  may,  in  answer  to  their  fervent 
prayers,  pour  out  his  Spirit  and  revive  his  work.  Remember, 
however,  that  the  success  of  their  prayers  does  not  prove  their 
notion  of  faith  to  be  exactly  right.  What  I  mean  to  say  is,  that 
notwithstanding  their  mistake,  there  may  be  that  in  their  prayers 
to  which  God  will  show  his  special  regard,  by  building  up  Zion. 
But  although  such  prayers  should  generally/  have  an  influence  in 
actually  bringing  forward  a  revival  of  religion  ;  still,  if  in  any 
cases  they  fail  of  this,  the  opinion  against  which  I  have  argued  is 
proved  to  be  incorrect.  It  is  proved  to  be  so  by  a  single  inn 
stance  of  failure.  For  the  opinion  is,  that  prayer  offered  up  in 
the  manner  specified,  always  secures  the  very  favors  which  are 
sought. 

After  all,  the  mistaken  opinion  which  we  have  been  considering 
is  not,  in  my  view,  so  dangerous  to  the  interests  of  piety,  as  the 
opinion  of  those  who  consider  prayer  to  be  of  little  importance, 
and  attribute  to  it  little  or  no  eflScacy.  The  mistake  I  have 
noticed  may  be  attended  with  humility,  with  fervor  in  prayer,  and 
with  trust  in  God.  Indeed  the  mistake  may,  perhaps,  in  some 
cases,  be  actually  occasioned  by  the  strength  of  faith  and  the 

12* 


138  PRAYER. 

warmth  of  love  exercised  in  prayer.  For  if  Christians  see  that 
the  particular  blessings  they  pray  for  are  exceedingly  desirable 
and  precious,  and  have,  at  the  same  time,  confidence  in  the 
unbounded  mercy  of  God,  they  will  be  very  likely,  with  their 
imperfect  knowledge  of  what  may  on  the  whole  be  best,  to  indulge 
the  idea,  that  God  will  certainly  grant  the  very  blessings  they 
ask.  And  undoubtedly  God  will  regard  what  is  incorrect  in  their 
opinion  as  a  far  less  evil,  than  the  fault  of  those  who  undervalue 
and  neglect  the  means  which  he  has  appointed  for  obtaining 
spiritual  blessings.  In  our  zeal,  then,  to  correct  the  mistake  of 
some  ardent  but  injudicious  Christians,  let  us  take  care  not  to 
commit  or  countenance  a  greater  mistake.  It  is  better  to  have 
something  of  the  heats  and  irregularities  of  enthusiasm,  than  the 
stupor  of  a  cold  and  heartless  philosophy.  Let  us  always  cherish 
the  sentiment  in  our  own  minds,  and  inculcate  it  upon  others,  that 
God  will  hear  his  people  when  they  pray,  and,  whether  he  grants 
the  particular  favors  they  ask,  or  others  in  their  stead,  that  their 
fervent  prayers  avail  much. 

The  chief  argument  in  support  of  the  opinion  which  we  have 
«o  particularly  considered,  is  found  in  Mark  11:  23,  24,  and  in 
some  other  similar  texts.  Jesus  said,  "  Have  faith  in  God.  For 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  whosoever  shall  say  unto  this  moun- 
tain, be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou  cast  into  the  sea ;  and  shall 
not  doubt  in  his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  those  things  which 
he  saith  shall  come  to  pass  ;  he  shall  have  whatsoever  he  saith. 
Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  what  things  soever  ye  desire  when  ye 
pray,  believe  that  ye  receive  them,  and  ye  shall  have  them." 
What  Jesus  here  said  to  his  apostles  relat-ed  to  the  withering  of 
the  fig-tree,  and  to  events  of  a  like  nature.  And  it  was  evi- 
dently intended  to  excite  in  them  an  expectation,  that  similar 
miracles  would  be  wrought  through  their  agency,  and  to  instruct 
them  as  to  the  faith  and  the  prayer  which  would  be  successful  in 
such  cases.  The  truth  of  Christianity  Avas  made  to  rest  upon  the 
miracles  which  they  undertook  to  perform.  The  credit  of  their 
cause,  therefore,  required  that  they  should  have  a  miraculous 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spu-it,  enabling  them  to  know  infallibly  that 


PRATER.  139 

certain  events  would  take  place  —  which  they  could  not  know  by 
natural  means.  It  is  clear,  that  their  power  to  work  miracles  did 
not  extend  to  all  cases.  It  was  a  power  which  they  were  to  exer- 
cise on  particular  occasions,  not  according  to  their  own  inclina- 
tions, but  according  to  the  will  of  God  and  to  the  inward  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Had  they  then  attempted  to  work  a  miracle, 
without  being  certainly  assured  by  a  divine  impulse  that  it  was 
the  will  of  God  that  the  miracle  should  be  wrought ;  they  would 
have  exposed  their  character  and  the  gospel  they  preached  to 
reproach.  Their  certainly  beUeving  that  they  should  receive  the 
miraculous  favors  which  they  prayed  for,  must  have  resulted  from 
a  divine  influence  in  their  minds,  like  that  which  made  known 
future  events  to  the  prophets.  And  yet,  although  the  miraculous 
dispensation  is  evidently  past,  it  is  thought  by  many  that  the 
passages  above  mentioned,  which  directly  related  to  miraculous 
events,  are  to  be  applied,  in  all  their  extent,  to  Christians  now, 
and  that  they  are,  in  all  cases,  to  exercise  the  same  kind  of  faith 
in  prayer,  as  the  apostles  did  in  regard  to  miracles.  But  it  is 
remarkable  that,  while  they  pretend  that  the  passages  relate  to 
themselves  just  as  they  did  to  the  apostles,  they  do  not  sometimes 
attempt  to  work  miracles.  If  they  would  give  clear  proof  that 
the  texts  in  question  are  applicable  to  Christians  at  the  present 
day,  let  them  perform  such  miraculous  works  as  those  referred  to, 
at  least  in  some  few  instances.  Let  them  say  to  a  barren  tree, 
be  thou  withered  away ;  or  to  a  blind  man,  receive  thy  sight ;  or 
to  a  man  dead,  and  buried  in  the  earth,  come  forth ;  and  let  us 
see  these  things  take  place.  We  will  then  believe  that  the  texts 
referred  to  relate  to  Christians  now,  just  as  they  did  to  the  apos- 
tles. But  the  fact  is,  that  Christians  of  sober  minds  never 
attempt  to  perform  such  works  ;  nor  do  they  ever  make  them  the 
subject  of  prayer,  however  desirable  they  may  seem  to  be  in 
themselves ;  thus  showing  that,  after  all,  they  do  not  regard  the 
texts  under  consideration  as  really  applicable  to  Christians  at  the 
present  day. 

One  thing  more.     I  ask  those  who  hold  to  the  opinion  against 
which  I  have  argued  ;  —  how  do  you  come  to  know  that  the  par- 


140  PRAYER. 

ticular  things  you  desire  will  be  granted  ?  How  do  you  obtain 
this  assurance  ?  You  say  the  assurance  is  involved  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  prayer  of  faith.  The  assurance  being  then  involved 
in  the  prayer  itself,  must  result  from  an  immediate  revelation, 
making  known  facts  which  could  not  be  known  by  natural  means. 
Hence  this  assured  beUef,  or  knowledge,  which  is  said  to  consti- 
tute the  faith  to  be  exercised  in  prayer,  can  be  no  more  the  duty 
of  Christians  generally,  than  the  gift  of  prophecy,  or  the  power  of 
working  miracles. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  find  that  Dr.  James  Richards  maintains 
the  views  which  I  have  advanced,  with  great  clearness  and 
strength  of  argument,  in  his  Second  Lecture  on  the  Prayer  of 
Faith.  He  says :  "  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  primi- 
tive church  two  kinds  of  faith  were  employed :  one  extraordinary ^ 
being  peculiar  to  individuals  who  had  the  gift  of  working  mira- 
cles ;  the  other  common,  belonging  to  all  Christians.  —  Both  were 
the  result  of  divine  teaching.  —  Still  they  were  in  various  respects 
different  from  each  other.  The  first,  which  was  connected  with 
miraculous  operations,  was  not  necessarily  a  gracious  exercise. 
Not  so  the  faith  common  to  all  true  believers.  This,  in  all  cases, 
is  a  holy  exercise. 

"  The  faith  of  miracles  seems  to  have  been  a  firm  persuasion 
not  only  of  the  divine  power,  but  that  the  contemplated  miracle 
would  certainly  he  performed.  It  did  not  stop  with  the  fact,  that 
God  was  able  to  accomplish  it,  or  that  he  had  promised  to  accom- 
plish it  on  any  supposed  conditions,  or  that  he  was  a  God  of  truth, 
and  would  not  fail  to  redeem  his  pledge  ;  but  it  went  to  the  fact, 
that  the  miracle  contemplated  would  be  performed.  How  this 
point  was  reached  will  be  an  after  consideration  ;  but  that  the 
faith  in  question  did  reach  it,  is  evident  from  the  manner  in  which 
Christ  describes  this  faith,  in  Mark  11:  23,  24.  Words  could 
scarcely  be  framed,  which  would  mark  with  more  precision  the 
fact  that  faith,  in  this  case,  was  to  believe  that  the  miraculous 
events  would  certainly  take  place. 

"  Those  who  wrought  miracles  often  intimated  such  a  persua- 
sion, before  a  miracle  was  performed.      Thus  Peter,  when  he 


PRAYER.  141 

healed  the  lame  man,  said  to  him,  Silver  and  gold  I  have  none, 
hut  such  as  I  have  I  give  thee  ;  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth^  rise  up  and  walk.  And  when  he  cured  Eneas,  he  said 
to  him,  Eneas,  Jesus  Christ  maketh  thee  whole ;  arise  and  make 
thy  bed;  and  he  immediately  arose.  It  is  obvious,  in  both  cases, 
that  the  Apostle  had  the  intention  and  expectation  of  working  a 
miracle,  antecedent  to  its  beinb  wrought. 

"  Those  gifted  with  the  power  of  working  miracles  did  not  always 
attempt  to  display  that  power  ;  or  if  they  did,  they  faiied  through 
unbelief.  Paul  —  left  Trophimus  at  Miletum  sick  ;  which  cannot 
be  accounted  for  but  upon  one  of  two  suppositions,  either  that  he 
did  not  attempt  to  heal  him,  or  attempted  and  failed.  Whichever 
is  true,  it  is  certain  he  had  no  well  grounded  persuasion  that  the 
thing  would  be  done.  —  "This  faith,"  (the  faith  of  miracles)  — 

*' was  built  on  evidence  not  only  that  the  power  of  working 

miracles  was  imparted  to  men  to  be  exercised  on  fit  occasions, 

—  but  that  it  was  the  pleasure  of  God  that  a  miracle  should  be 
wrought  at  the  time  and  in  the  circumstances  contemplated.  — 
But  how  could   it  be  known  that  such  was  the  pleasure  of  God  ? 

—  Our  reply  is,  that  the  purpose  of  God  might  have  been  known 
by  the  immediate  suggestion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  is  there 
any  inherent  improbability,  that  those  who  wrought  miracles  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  should  receive  intimations  from  him 
when  and  where  these  mighty  works  were  to  be  performed.  —  But 
allow  the  intimation  we  have  supposed  from  that  ever  present 
Spirit  who  was  given  to  the  primitive  disciples  —  and  all  difl&culty 
vanishes. 

"  But  there  is  another  kind  of  faith,  common  to  Christians  in 
all  ages  —  a  faith  which  takes  hold  of  the  divine  attributes  and  the 
divine  promises,  without  any  miraculous  intimation  concerning  the 
result."* 

*  Both  these  Lectures  of  Dr.  Richards'  to  which  I  have  referred,  are  worthy 
of  a  carefal  perusal. 


LECTURE    XCIX. 


WHAT     DEFINITE    VIEWS    ARE     WE    TO    ENTERTAIN    OF     THE    IN- 
FLUENCE   OF    PRAYER? 

During  the  preceding  discussion,  the  inquiry  has  probably 
arisen  in  your  minds,  whether  there  is  any  way  to  determine  when 
our  prayers  will  secure  the  particular  blessings  we  ask,  and  when 
this  is  not  to  be  certainly  expected;  and  what  definite  conceptions 
we  are  to  form  on  this  subject. 

Here  I  shall  more  particularly  set  before  you  a  principle,  which 
has  already  been  suggested  ;  namely,  that  the  sincere  and  fervent 
prayers  of  Christians  do  invariably  secure  the  special  favor  of 
God,  and  all  the  particular  blessings  tvhich  are  involved  in  it,  — 
all  the  blessings  tvhich  are  necessary  to  their  salvation.  This  prin- 
ciple, well  considered  and  applied,  will,  I  hope,  conduct  you  to 
some  satisfactory  results. 

If  then,  in  sincere  prayer  to  God,  you  ask  for  those  blessings 
which  the  special  favor  of  God  implies,  or  which  are  necessary  to 
your  eternal  well-being,  such  as  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  the  sanc- 
tifying and  comfortmg  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  enjoyment 
of  God  in  heaven ;  you  will  certainly  receive  the  very  blessings 
you  ask.  If  you  heartily  worship  God  and  seek  his  favor,  your 
eternal  happiness  is  sure.  As  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which 
God  will  bestow  spiritual  blessings,  your  desires  and  expectations 
may  not  be  particularly  met.  But  the  blessings  themselves  will  be 
yours.  In  his  own  time  and  manner  God  will  certainly  bestow 
them.  You  may  ask  for  pardon,  sanctification,  divine  guidance, 
comfort  in  trouble,  and  eternal  blessedness  in  heaven,  and  you 


PRATER.  148 

shall,  without  fail,  receive  them  in  all  their  fulness.  And  if,  when 
you  pray  for  these  spiritual  blessings,  you  are  conscious  of  sinceri- 
ty and  trust  in  God,  your  belief  in  the  divine  promises  will  imply 
a  belief,  that  the  very  blessings  sought  will  be  granted.  It  was 
doubtless  to  these  spiritual  blessings  the  Apostle  John  referred, 
when  he  said ;  "  We  know  that  whatsoever  we  ask,  we  shall 
receive,  because  we  keep  his  commandments."  He  had  his  eye 
upon  the  great  things  which  are  essential  to  eternal  life,  and  which 
appeared  to  him  so  important,  that  he  lost  sight  of  other  things, 
and  could  hardly  think  them  worthy  to  be  mentioned.  As  though 
he  had  said  ;  all  our  requests  in  regard  to  the  yreat  things  of  sal- 
vation u'ill  be  granted.  Whatsoever  we  ask  that  is  important  to 
our  eternal  interest,  zve  knoiv  that  we  shall  certainly  receive,  Je- 
cause  ive  are  God^s  obedient  servants,  and  enjoy  his  special  favor. 
In  this  manner  we  are  to  understand  the  words  of  Christ ;  asky 
and  ye  shall  receive  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find.  He  says  this  with  an 
implied  reference  to  those  things  Avhich  are  of  paramount  impor- 
tance to  his  disciples,  and  in  possession  of  which,  whatever  else 
they  may  want,  they  will  say,  all  things  are  ours. 

But  there  are  other  things,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  which 
are  not  necessarily  implied  in  salvation,  and  which  God  may  see 
to  be  inconsistent  with  our  highest  good.  There  are  many  person- 
al favors,  such  as  health,  competence  and  friends,  Avhich  may,  in 
a  subordinate  sense,  be  the  objects  of  our  desire,  and  which  we 
may  properly  ask  God  to  give  us.  And  there  are  many  thorns  in 
the  flesh,  many  trials  and  sufferings,  from  which  we  may  pray  to 
be  delivered.  As  to  such  things  as  these,  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
must  be  subject  to  the  limitations  which  have  been  specified.  God, 
in  the  exercise  of  his  wisdom  and  love,  may  grant  the  favors 
desired,  or  may  withhold  them  ;  may  deliver  us  from  the  evils  we 
suffer,  or  may  continue  them.  In  regard  to  things  of  this  kind, 
the  spirit  of  our  petitions  should  be,  Lord,  grant  our  requests,  if 
consistent  ivith  thy  wisdom.  If  otherwise,  ive  submit.  Not  our 
will,  but  thine  be  done. 

But  you  may  ask,  how  God  can  be  said  to  hear  our  prayer, 
trhen  he  does  not  grant  our  petitions.     In  regard  to  this,  the 


141  PRATER. 

truth  seems  to  be,  that  while  God  does  not  answer  prayer  literally 
and  directly,  he  does  it  indirectly.  He  accepts  our  prayer,  and 
from  regard  to  it  bestows  blessings  upon  us,  — not  the  specific 
blessings  for  which  we  prayed,  but  others  which  are  more  impor- 
tant in  their  stead.  Thus  in  the  case  of  Paul,  the  Lord  evident- 
ly accepted  his  prayer,  but  instead  of  taking  away  the  thorn  in 
the  flesh,  he  said,  my  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee.  This  was  more 
tiian  an  equivalent,  such  a  virtual  or  indirect  answer  being  better 
than  a  literal  answer. 

The  same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  prayer  even 
for  spiritual  blessings  is  answered.  We  pray  for  the  increase  of 
our  humility,  love  and  other  branches  of  holiness,  and  hope  to 
receive  the  favor  sought  directly  and  sensibly.  God  bestows  the 
favor,  but  in  another  way,  generally  by  means  of  afflictions  or 
crosses.  He  answers  the  prayer,  not  in  the  manner  contemplated 
by  our  fallible  minds,  but  according  to  his  own  infinite  wisdom  and 
goodness.  And  surely  every  Christian  must  be  satisfied  with 
this. 

But  how  is  it  with  regard  to  the  prayers  which  are  offered  up 
for  sinners  ?  Have  we  any  assurance  that  our  sincere  and  fer- 
vent prayers  will  be  answered  by  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  we 
pray? 

I  have  already  noticed  this  inquiry,  but  shall  now  reply  to  it 
more  particularly. 

K  it  be  true  that  our  fervent  prayers  will  certainly  secure  the 
salvation  of  all  for  whom  we  pray ;  then  the  impenitence  and 
destruction  of  every  sinner  who  is  lost,  must  be  charged  to  the 
account  of  every  minister  and  every  Christian.  For  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  follower  of  Christ  to  pray,  in  sincerity  and  faith, 
for  the  salvation  of  all  sinners  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  If  such 
prayer  would  certainly  secure  the  salvation  of  all  sinners,  as  it 
does  the  salvation  of  believers  themselves  ;  then  their  not  being 
saved  would  prove  that  such  prayer  had  never  been  offered  up.  On 
this  supposition,  it  was  owing  to  the  criminal  neglect  of  Paul  and  the 
other  apostles,  that  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles  were  not  universally 
saved.     And  then,  how  could  Paul  declare  that  he  was  pure  from 


PRAYER.  145 

the  blood  of  all  men  ?  And  how  could  he  say  that  he  kept  a  con- 
science void  of  offence  towards  God  and  towards  men  ?  And 
what  reason  had  the  apostles  to  think  that  they  were  a  sweet 
savor  unto  God  —  that  is,  acceptable  to  him,  in  them  that  were 
saved  and  in  them  that  perished  ?  While,  then,  it  is  certain  that 
the  prayers  which  the  bchever  offers  up  for  his  own  forgiveness 
and  salvation  will  certainly  secure  the  good  for  which  ho  prays; 
the  prayers  which  he  offers  up  for  others  cannot  be  viewed  in  the 
same  hght ;  and  the  divine  promises  respecting  the  two  cases  can- 
not be  understood  in  the  same  sense. 

What  conceptions,  then,  are  we  to  entertain  respecting  the 
influence  of  the  prayer  which  is  offered  up  for  the  conversion  and 
salvation  of  sinners  ?  And  are  these  conceptions  such,  as  to 
afford  a  proper  and  sufficient  encouragement  to  pray  for  this 
object  ? 

My  first  remark  is,  that  all  right  prayer  is  acceptable  to  Grod, 
and  will,  in  one  way  or  another,  secure  his  blessings.  The  pray- 
ers which  Christians  offer  up  for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  come 
from  the  benevolence  and  compassion  of  their  hearts.  God 
regards  them  with  approbation  ;  and,  as  an  expression  of  his 
approbation  and  in  answer  to  their  prayers,  he  pours  out  his  Spirit 
and  turns  sinners  —  some  sinners  from  darkness  to  light,  perhaps 
not  speedily,  but  in  due  time.  And  if  sinners,  if  any  sinners, 
are  sooner  or  later  converted  through  the  prayers  of  believers, 
they  will  say  in  eternity,  when  all  things  appear  in  their  true 
light,  that  God  did  indeed  mercifully  answer  their  prayers.  They 
will  witness  the  accomplishment  of  their  pious  desires,  and  will  see 
that  their  prayers  had  a  precious  influence,  even  all  the  influence 
which  the  unerring  wisdom  of  God  judged  it  right  to  give  them. 
More  than  this  they  could  not  desire. 

My  second  remark  is,  that  all  which  God  ever  does,  in  convert- 
ing and  saving  sinners,  he  does  in  answer  to  prayer.  His  purpose 
is  to  save  a  great  multitude  of  our  revolted  race  ;  but  he  will  be 
inquired  of  by  his  people  to  accomplish  this  work  of  redeeming 
mercy.  In  this  view,  the  importance  of  prayer  is  exceedingly 
manifest.     How  could  God  give  it  a  higher  value,  than  to  make  it 

VOL  III.  13 


146  PRAYER, 

the  means  of  carrying  into  effect  his  wise  and  benevolent  designs  ? 
When  Henry  Martyn  was  in  Persia,  he  offered  up  many  prayers 
and  made  many  other  efforts  for  the  salvation  of  Mohammedans, 
Jews,  and  Pagans.  But  how  little  did  he  accomplish  during  his 
life  !  Unthinking  observers,  looking  only  at  first  appearances, 
might  say,  that  he  prayed  in  vain.  But  they  might  just  as  well 
say,  that  all  his  pious  labors  were  in  vain,  seeing  the  effect  they 
produced  was,  for  the  time,  so  inconsiderable.  And  on  the  same 
principle  they  might  say,  that  the  labors  and  sufferings  of  Christ 
on  earth  Avere  almost  in  vain,  because  few  comparatively  be- 
lieved on  him  during  his  life.  But  what  will  become  of  this  opin- 
ion in  a  coming  day,  when  it  shall  appear,  that  what  Christ  did 
and  suffered  on  earth,  though  for  a  time  attended  with  so  little 
good  effect,  was  the  certain  means  of  salvation  to  all  the  re- 
deemed ;  and  when  it  shall  appear,  too,  that  the  labors  and 
prayers  of  Henry  Martyn  were  a  part  of  the  system  of  means 
which  God  employed  for  the  conversion  of  India  and  Persia.  It 
shows  a  narrow  way  of  thinking,  to  suppose  that  the  real  influence 
of  prayer  is  to  be  measured  by  its  effects  to-day,  or  to-morrow,  or 
by  its  effect  on  the  particular  individuals  we  may  have  in  view 
when  we  pray.  For  God  doubtless  makes  prayer  the  means  of 
good,  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years  after  it  is  offered  up. 
And  he  may  as  really  answer  prayer  in  this  way,  as  by  connecting 
blessings  with  it  at  the  time  when  it  is  offered  up. 

I  remark,  thirdly,  that  the  degree  of  influence  which  prayer 
has,  is  doubtless  in  some  proportion  to  the  degree  of  holy  affection 
exercised  in  the  duty.  Prayer  offered  up  by  Christians  with 
deep  humility,  with  ardent  love,  and  with  strong  confidence  in 
God,  will,  we  apprehend,  secure  a  larger  amount  of  good  to  them- 
selves and  to  others,  than  if  it  were  offered  up  with  less  humility, 
faith,  and  love.  This  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  declaration  of 
James,  that  the  fervent  prayer  of  the  righteous  availeth  much  ; 
and  it  is  plainly  implied  in  the  instructions  of  Christ,  as  to  the 
sure  success  of  importunity  in  prayer.  Why  may  not  this  princi- 
ple be  applied  to  all  the  particular  things  which  are  sought  in 
prayer  ?     For  example  ;  if  parents  pray  for  the  conversion  of 


PRAYER.  147 

their  children  with  a  high  degree  of  holy  desire  and  with  perse- 
vering importunity,  they  have  a  better  prospect  of  obtaining  the 
blessing  they  seek,  than  if  they  prayed  coldly  and  inconstantly. 
And  in  general,  the  grace  of  God  in  the  conversion  of  sinners 
and  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  is  to  be  expected  very  much  in  pro- 
portion as  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  is  poured  out  upon 
believers. 

Fourthly.  In  the  great  work  of  promoting  the  jjrosperitg  of 
Chrises  spiritual  kingdom  and  the  conversion  of  the  world,  there 
is  need  of  the  united  prayers  of  Christians.  We  are  social 
beings,  and,  in  order  to  accomplish  any  work  of  great  importance, 
we  must  combine  our  efforts.  What  could  a  single  man  do 
towards  carrying  into  effect  the  great  schemes  of  public  utility  or 
convenience,  which  have  been  executed  in  our  own  country  and  ia 
other  parts  of  the  world  ?  And  what  could  a  single  Christian  do 
towards  translating  the  Bible  into  all  languages,  and  printing  a 
number  of  copies  sufficient  to  supply  all  the  families  of  the  earth, 
or  towards  preaching  the  gospel  to  all  nations  ?  The  same  as  to 
the  present  subject.  Prayer,  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  en- 
largement of  Christ's  kingdom  and  the  salvation  of  the  world, 
must  be  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  of  the  end  in  view.  For 
example  ;  it  cannot  be  expected  that  the  prayers  of  a  single 
Christian,  even  of  an  Apostle,  Avill,  by  itself,  be  effectual  to  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews.  Paul  prayed  for  their  salvation,  and 
prayed  evidently  with  great  earnestness  and  sincerity.  But  how 
little  was  the  apparent  effect !  The  conversion  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  of  the  whole  Gentile  Avorld,  is  now  regarded  by 
Christians  as  the  great  object  to  be  sought  in  their  prayers.  But 
it  is  a  work  of  vast  extent  and  immense  difficulty,  and  is  to  be 
accomphshed,  not  by  the  prayers  of  a  single  Christian,  though  he 
may  be  a  Brainerd,  a  Martyn,  or  a  Paul,  but  by  the  united  pray- 
ers of  a  great  multitude.  No  one  prays  without  producing  a  real 
and  important  effect.  But  the  world's  conversion  is  an  object  of 
inconceivable  moment,  and  calls  for  the  combined  influence  of  the 
importunate  su[)j)lications  of  all  believers  in  every  part  of  the 
earth.     The  Scriptures  confirm  this  view  of  the  subject,  by  the 


148  PRAYER. 

great  stress  which  they  lay  upon  united  prayer.  Paul  thought  it 
of  special  consequence  to  his  safety,  that  the  devout  Corinthians 
should  help  together  by  prayer  for  him.  And  even  in  regard  to 
miraculous  operations,  it  was  necessary,  in  some  cases,  that  at 
least  two  should  join  in  prayer.  Viewing  the  subject  in  this 
light,  what  an  animating  prospect  have  we  at  the  present  day,  of 
the  spread  of  the  gospel  and  the  enlargement  of  Christ's  kingdom. 
The  united  prayers  of  Christians,  in  different  and  distant  parts  of 
the  world,  every  month,  and  every  Sabbath,  and  every  day,  for 
the  salvation  of  the  human  race,  must  come  up  Avith  acceptance 
before  God,  and  have  a  prevailing  influence  in  bringing  forward 
the  universal  triumph  of  -  divine  grace. 

Finally ;  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  work  of  benevolence 
requires  not  only  the  united^  but  the  long-continued,  persevering 
jrrayers  of  God^s  people.  The  united  prayers  of  all  Christians, 
■offered  up  once,  or  a  few  times  only,  would  fall  far  short  of  the 
desired  efficacy.  But  if  they  pray  with  united  and  persevering 
importunity,  they  will  at  length  prevail.  Such  is  the  wise 
appointment  of  God.  It  would,  in  most  instances,  be  a  mistake, 
should  we  expect  the  full  attainment  of  the  good  we  have  in 
view,  by  means  of  a  single  prayer,  or  prayer  repeated  a  few 
times.  Our  complete  sanctification  is  not  to  be  effected  in  this 
"way,  but  must  be  the  consequence  of  fervent  cries  to  heaven,  con- 
tinued through  the  whole  period  of  our  life.  Parents,  who  seek 
the  grace  of  God  for  their  children,  must  not  think  it  strange  if 
that  grace  is,  in  many  cases,  withheld,  till  they  have  labored  and 
prayed  for  many  years,  and  in  some  instances  till  the  end  of  their 
life.  But  perseverance  in  prayer  is  still  more  important  and 
necessary,  in  order  that  all  nations  may  be  brought  to  obey  the 
gospel.  Let,  then,  the  whole  body  of  Christians  continue  their 
united  and  eai-nest  suppUcations  to  God,  from  year  to  year  and 
from  age  to  age,  for  a  world  lying  in  wickedness  ;  and  their  pray- 
ers at  every  period  will  avail  much,  and,  in  connection  Avith  their 
faithful  labors,  will  at  length  prove  an  effectual  means  of  convey- 
ing the  blessings  of  salvation  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth.  And 
•what  Christian,  when  he  beholds  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises 


PKAYER.  149 

in  the  conversion  of  the  world,  and  knows  that  his  prayers,  though 
seemingly  without  influence  for  a  time,  did  really  contribute  to 
that  glorious  event,  will  hesitate  to  say,  that  God  has  truly,  in 
the  highest  sense,  heard  the  voice  of  his  supplications  and  gra- 
ciously answered  his  prayers,  though  once,  in  his  ignorance,  he 
perhaps  thought  them  disregarded  and  forgotten. 


I  shall  conclude  these  Lectures  on  Prayer  by  a  few  practical 
remarks  on  the  performance  of  the  duty. 

1.  The  toord  of  God  does  not  lay  down  any  p-edse  rules  in 
regard  to  the  time,  the  frequency,  the  length,  or  the  form  of 
prayer.  The  Psalmist,  at  diflferent  times,  represents  his  devo- 
tional exercises  to  be  different.  Now  he  speaks  of  praying  even- 
ing, morning,  and  at  noon  ;  and  now,  seven  times  a  day.  The 
stated  time  for  prayer  among  the  Jews  was,  according  to  our 
reckoning,  9  o'clock,  A.  M.,  12,  M.,  and  3,  P.  M.  But  these 
seasons  would  be  exceedingly  inconvenient  for  the  mass  of  Chris- 
tians in  Europe  and  America.  The  example  of  Christ  was 
various.  Sometimes  he  went  to  a  solitary  place,  and  prayed 
before  the  morning  light  appeared.  Sometimes  he  continued  his 
devotional  exercises  all  night.  In  his  distress,  the  night  before 
his  crucifixion,  he  went  away  from  his  disciples  and  prayed  three 
times,  prostrating  himself  on  the  ground.  Previously,  on  the 
same  night,  he  offered  up  the  prayer  recorded  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  John.  He  prayed  twice  at  the  institution  of  the 
Sacred  Supper.  He  offered  up  prayer  at  his  meals,  and  some- 
times when  he  wrought  miracles,  and  finally,  during  his  agonies  on 
the  cross.  If  we  would  copy  his  example,  we  must  always  be  in 
a  spiritual  and  devout  frame,  and  look  to  God  in  prayer  frequently 
and  with  freedom,  according  to  circumstances.  His  instructions 
on  this  subject  were  various,  but  were  evidently  not  intended  to 
contain  any  precise  rules,  to  which  his  disciples  were  invariably  to 
adhere.  The  particular  form  of  prayer  which  he  gave  them 
showed  clearly  with  what  spirit  they  should  pray,  and  what  kind 
of  petitions  they  should  offer  up  to  their  Father  in  heaven.     But 

13* 


150  PRAYER. 

there  is  no  evidence  that  his  disciples  considered  him  as  prescrib- 
ing an  exact  form  of  words  which  they  were  to  use  in  prayer. 
And  if  we  examine  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  their  Epistles  to 
the  churches  and  individuals,  we  find  many  examples  of  prayer 
oflfered  up  by  them  on  different  occasions,  and  many  exhortations 
to  prayer.  But  what  proof  is  there  that  they  ever  prayed  in 
that  precise  form  which  is  called  the  Lord's  prayer,  or  that 
liiey  expected  Christians  to  do  so  ?  They  inculcated  sincerity, 
reverence,  earnestness,  and  perseverance  ;  but  they  said  nothing 
as  to  the  particular  time,  the  length,  or  the  form  of  prayer.  All 
these  things  they  left  to  be  determined  by  the  experience,  the 
judgment,  and  conscience  of  Christians.  And  in  all  this  we  have 
clear  evidence  of  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God.  For,  while 
it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to  pray,  how  would  it  be  possible 
for  them  to  conform  to  one  and  the  same  rule  ?  How  could 
prayer  of  the  same  length  and  the  same  exact  form  be  offered  up 
by  the  aged,  by  young  persons,  and  by  little  children  —  by  Chris- 
tians in  health  and  in  sickness,  in  wealth  and  in  poverty,  in  joy 
and  in  sorrow  ?  How  burdensome  and  embarrassing  would  be 
any  attempt  or  any  feeling  of  obligation  to  do  this  !  How  incom- 
patible with  the  free  spirit  of  filial  piety ! 

2.  But  although  God  has  not  given  us  precise  and  universal  rules 
as  to  the  time,  length,  and  form  of  prayer,  it  does  not  follow  that 
these  things  are  of  no  consequence,  or  that  we  are  incapable  of 
arriving  at  any  just  conclusions  respecting  them.  By  the  proper 
exercise  of  our  own  reason  and  conscience,  by  a  proper  regard  to 
the  precepts  of  God's  word,  and  to  the  example  of  Christ  and 
his  people,  and  by  means  of  our  own  experience,  we  may  arrive 
at  some  definite  and  satisfactory  conclusions.  In  the  books  of 
devotion  which  have  been  written  by  men  of  eminent  knowledge 
and  piety,  there  are  maxims  and  rules  respecting  prayer,  which 
you  may  study  with  great  advantage.  But  these  maxims  and 
rules  possess  no  authority  over  us,  except  so  far  as  they  are 
derived  from  Scripture.  As  to  all  uninspired  directions  and  rules, 
we  are  to  judge,  though  we  must  do  it  in  the  fear  of  God,  whether 
and  how  far  they  are  suited  to  our  particular  case.     Many  and 


PRAYER.  161 

excellent  are  the  devotional  books  with  which  a  merciful  provi- 
dence has  favored  us.  In  the  use  which  we  are  to  make  of  them, 
our  chief  aim  should  be,  to  get  our  minds  deeply  impressed  with 
the  principles  of  piety  which  they  illustrate,  and  imbued  with  the 
spirit  which  pervades  them,  and  then,  without  attempting  to  copy 
too  minutely  and  exactly  all  that  may  have  been  beneficial  to 
others,  to  endeavor  to  profit  by  their  writings  and  their  example, 
and  to  advance  ourselves  to  higher  and  higher  degrees  of  holiness. 

It  is  clear,  from  the  very  nature  of  man  and  from  common 
experience,  that  sotne  regular  method  of  devotional  exercises,  is 
important  in  the  Christian  life.  In  all  ordinary  circumstances, 
we  must  observe  set  times  for  prayer  ;  otherwise  we  shall  be  in 
danger  of  frequent  neglect,  and  shall  deprive  ourselves  of  the 
great  benefit  of  habit  in  our  devotions.  After  fixing  our  method, 
which  we  ought  to  do  with  much  consideration  and  care,  conform- 
ing, as  far  as  may  be,  to  the  common  method  of  eminent  Chris- 
tians, we  should  endeavor  so  to  arrange  our  affairs,  that  we  may 
not  be  turned  aside  from  our  settled  course.  By  conscientiously 
adhering,  for  a  length  of  time,  to  the  method  of  devotion  which  we 
have  adopted,  we  shall  form  a  habit  of  regularity  ;  and  this  habit 
will  be  a  safeguard  against  forgetfulness  and  neglect,  and  will 
have  a  mighty  influence  to  insure  a  persevering  discharge  of  this 
most  important  duty. 

But  while  such  a  pious  habit,  which  results  from  a  regular 
attention  to  the  common  method  of  devotion,  is  in  many  respects 
of  great  moment ;  and  while  we  should,  with  the  most  watchful 
resolution,  avoid  whatever  would  interfere  with  it ;  we  must  not 
forget  that  the  habit  itself  is,  after  a  while,  likely  to  beget  formal- 
ity and  deadness.  Such  is  man,  such  are  the  wisest  and  best  of 
men  in  the  present  state,  where  everything  tends  to  evil.  It  is  a 
well-known,  but  lamentable  fact,  that  a  steady,  uniform  course  of 
religious  duty,  without  which  we  can  never  attain  to  any  consider- 
able strength  of  Christian  character,  cannot  be  long  continued 
without  exposing  us  to  a  coldness  and  dulness  which  will  render  all 
our  services  unprofitable.  In  what  way  shall  this  deplorable  con- 
sequence of  uniformity  and  habit  in  religion  be  prevented  ? 


152  PRAYER. 

Here  comes  in  the  importance  of  some  uncommon  means  of 
grace  —  some  extraordinary  seasons  of  devotion.  The  people  of 
God  in  all  ages  have  found  such  seasons  necessary,  and  have  ex- 
perienced the  happy  effects  of  them.  They  cannot  be  neglected 
without  great  loss.  If  we  exercise  a  sound  judgment  and  dis- 
cretion in  setting  apart  special  seasons  for  fasting,  self-reflection 
and  prayer,  and  apply  ourselves  with  becoming  earnestness  to  the 
proper  exercises  ;  the  benefit  to  our  spiritual  interest  will  be  great. 
We  shall  be  raised  above  the  listless,  dormant  state  which  gener- 
ally results  from  one  unvarying  course  of  action.  The  deeper 
penitence  and  humility,  the  stronger  faith,  and  the  more  fervent 
love,  which  have,  through  divine  grace,  been  exercised  on  our 
days  of  fasting  and  prayer,  will  diffuse  their  influence  through  all 
our  ordinary  duties.  These  extraordinary  seasons  will  thus  be 
productive  of  a  two-fold  benefit.  They  will  excite  more  intense 
and  powerful  exercises  of  holiness  at  the  time  ;  and  these  exerci- 
ses will  extend  their  good  influence  beyond  the  time,  and  will 
infuse  new  animation  into  the  common  duties  of  religion,  and  give 
greater  life  and  energy  to  our  devotional  habits.  In  this  way  we 
shall  experience  a  solid  and  permanent  improvement  in  our  spirit- 
ual state,  and  shall  make  some  approximation  to  the  uniform  and 
elevated  piety  of  our  Lord  and  Master. 

Before  closing  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  I  would  ask  your 
attention  to  two  additional  suggestions. 

The  first  relates  to  the  choice  of  a  plan  in  regard  to  the  time, 
the  length,  and  the  form  of  our  prayers.  Here  much  assistance 
may  be  derived,  as  I  have  said,  from  the  holy  Scriptures,  and 
from  the  writings  of  uninspired  men.  But  if  we  would  experience 
the  greatest  benefit  from  these  helps,  we  must  possess  a  truly  de- 
votional state  of  mind.  Such  a  state  is  itself  a  most  valuable 
guide,  and  a  help  to  the  best  use  of  every  other  guide. 

My  other  suggestion  is  of  very  serious  consequence.  I  have 
already  said  in  general,  that  we  must  guard  watchfully  against 
all  hinderances  to  the  spirit  of  prayer,  and  to  the  growing  profit 
and  pleasure  of  devotion.  I  shall  now  speak  of  that  which  is  the 
greatest  of  all  hinderances,  namely,  the  predominance  of  sin  in 
the  heart  and  life. 


PRAYER.  158 

It  is  evident  from  the  word  of  God,  and  from  Christian  experi- 
ence, that  a  holy  hfe  is  indispensable  to  the  enjoyment  of  com- 
munion with  God  in  prayer.  "  If  I  regard  iniquity  in  my  heart, 
the  Lord  will  not  hear  me."  The  reason  is  that  in  such  a  case 
our  prayers  will  be  radically  faulty,  and  so  cannot  be  acceptable 
to  a  holy  God,  and  cannot  receive  any  mark  of  his  approbation. 
A  hfe  of  steady  and  cordial  obedience  keeps  our  whole  spiritual 
state  sound  and  active,  and  so  prepares  us  to  engage  with  promp- 
titude in  every  duty,  and  particularly  in  the  duty  of  prayer  ;  just 
as  bodily  health  prepares  us  to  receive  and  appropriate  wholesome 
food.  Communion  with  God  in  prayer  is  food  to  believers.  But 
they  cannot  enjoy  it  unless  their  souls  have  the  health  and  vigor 
which  flow  from  a  life  of  watchful  obedience.  Those  who  Uve  a 
holy  life  will  love  to  be  near  to  their  heavenly  Father,  and  to  hold 
spiritual  converse  with  him  ;  as  a  dutiful  child  loves  to  be  in  the 
presence  of  his  parents.  But  disobedience,  or  neglect  of  duty  in 
Christians,  tends  to  make  prayer  irksome,  and  leads  them,  as  it 
did  the  transgressors  in  Paradise,  to  hide  themselves  from  the 
presence  of  God.  Offenders  ought  indeed,  without  delay,  to  re- 
pair to  God,  and  with  penitent  and  humble  hearts  to  sue  for  mercy. 
But  the  state  which  is  usually  consequent  upon  sinning  is  wholly 
unadapted  to  communion  with  God.  The  power  of  conscience  or 
the  kindhng  of  love  and  penitence  in  the  heart  may  overcome  the 
reluctance  of  offending  Christians  to  approach  God,  —  may  over- 
come it  again  and  again.  But  every  time  they  offend,  the  pain 
of  confession  and  repentance  is  likely  to  be  increased,  and  they 
will  become  more  and  more  reluctant  to  engage  in  that  duty,  in 
•which  there  must  be  repentance  and  confession  —  more  and  more 
inclined  to  forsake  the  throne  of  grace.  Sin  is  truly  the  great 
hindera7ice  to  piety.  Its  very  touch  is  death  to  the  spirit  of 
prayer.  If  you  go  through  the  families  that  enjoy  religious  in- 
struction, and  search  for  the  reason  why  so  many  parents  and 
children  neglect  prayer,  you  will  find  the  reason  to  be,  that  they 
regard  iniquity  in  their  hearts,  and  are  not  willing  to  forsake  it ; 
and  that  in  this  state  of  mind  they  feel  a  strong  aversion  to  go 
into  the  presence  of  a  God  who  is  perfectly  holy  and  just,  who 


154  PRATEK. 

disapproves  of  their  ungodly  life,  and  with  infinite  authority  com- 
mands them  to  turn  from  it. 

Further.  Sin  indulged  in  the  heart  or  acted  out  in  the  life,  is 
a  hinderance  to  piety,  by  occupying  those  thoughts  and  aifec'tions 
which  ought  to  be  employed  in  prayer.  If  sin  -wholly  occupies 
and  engrosses  the  affections,  as  it  does  in  the  impenitent,  the  spirit 
of  devotion  will  be  Avholly  excluded.  And  if  sin  occupies  the 
thoughts  and  affections  in  any  degree,  as  it  often  does  in  Chris- 
tians, it  will,  in  the  same  degree,  exclude  those  affections  which 
constitute  piety.  Thus  the  mind  will  be  divided,  and  only  a  part 
of  its  activity  remain  for  God.  And  the  consequence  will  be,  that 
the  principle  of  piety  will  be  weakened  and  impaired,  just  as  a 
man's  power  for  bodily  action  is  impaired  by  a  palsy,  which  spreads 
its  deadening  influence  over  half  the  body. 

But  sin  carries  its  evil  influence  beyond  particular  affections. 
The  faculties  and  operations  of  the  mind  are  so  closely  connected, 
that  whatever  affects  one  of  them,  does  more  or  less  affect  them 
aJl.  Thus,  if  sin  gains  influence  over  a  part  of  the  affections,  it 
not  only  turns  away  that  part  from  the  exercises  of  piety,  but  ex- 
tends an  influence  over  the  other  affections  also,  at  least  so  far  as 
to  render  them  unfit  for  the  more  spiritual  parts  of  devotion.  Nor 
is  this  influence  of  sin  over  the  affections  limited  to  the  exact  time 
when  it  is  committed  or  indulged.  Its  influence  continues ;  so 
that  the  affections  which  next  arise,  and  those  which  follow,  al- 
though they  may  in  some  degree  be  holy,  will  be  less  holy  than 
if  the  sin  had  been  avoided.  And  who  can  tell  how  long  the 
morbid  effect  of  sin  may  continue,  even  in  Christians,  and  how 
long  it  may  detract  from  the  life  of  their  devotions  ?  They  fre- 
quently complain  that  their  souls  cleave  to  the  dust,  and  that  their 
affections  will  not  rise  to  God.  And  they  may  sometimes  be  un- 
able to  fix  upon  the  cause  of  this  unhappy  state,  there  being  noth- 
ing in  their  present  circumstances  which  can  satisfactorily  account 
for  it.  But  this  low,  wretched  state  has  a  cause.  And  that  cause 
may  possibly  be  found  in  some  sin,  open  or  secret,  which  they 
were  guilty  of  many  months  or  years  ago.  That  particular  sin 
may  have  passed  away  from  their  memory  ;  but  its  influence  has 


PRAYER.  155 

not  passed  away  from  their  heart.  And  it  may  be  that  this  in- 
destructible influence  of  a  sin  committed  so  long  before,  is  the 
cause  which  still  interferes  so  fatally  with  the  spirit  of  prayer. 

Again.  Sin  proves  a  hinderance  to  piety  by  preventing  the 
proper  use  of  the  common  means  of  promoting  it,  —  thus  taking 
away  that  which  was  appointed  to  be  the  very  nutriment  and  sup- 
port of  the  spiritual  life.  Suppose  you  give  indulgence  to  some 
forbidden  disposition,  or  allow  yourself  to  transgress  some  divine 
precept ;  what  benefit  can  you  derive  from  the  Sabbath,  the  word 
of  God,  and  other  means  and  ordinances  of  religion  ? 

Finally.  Sin,  allowed  in  the  life  or  in  the  heart,  proves  a  hin- 
derance to  piety,  by  offending  God,  and  preventing  that  influence 
of  the  Spirit  which  is  the  spring  of  all  acceptable  prayer.  Unless 
the  divine  Spirit  dwell  in  us  and  help  our  infirmities,  our  piety 
will  languish  and  die.  But  will  God  grant  that  precious  gift  to 
those  w^ho  do  that  abominable  thing  which  he  hates  ?  Let  us  then 
put  away  all  the  works  of  iniquity.  Let  us  subdue  pride  and  love 
of  the  world,  all  unholy  thoughts,  all  impure  and  earthly  desires. 
Let  no  sin  have  dominion  over  us.  Then,  the  barrier  between  us 
and  God  being  removed,  we  shall  come  freely  and  joyfully  into 
his  presence,  and  he  will  manifest  himself  to  us  as  he  does  not 
unto  the  world,  and  we  shall  be  the  temples  of  God  through  the 
Holy  Ghost. 


LECTURE    C 


THE    GOSPEL   DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    EXPLAINED. 

I  SHALL  think  myself  happy,  if,  amid  the  different  and  clashing 
opinions  which  are  held  on  the  subject  of  Justification,  and  amid 
the  difficulties  which  arise  from  the  ambiguous  use  of  words,  I 
may  be  able  to  advance  anything  which  shall  contribute  to  the 
benefit  of  those  who  are  inquiring  after  the  truth.  My  aim  will 
be,  to  set  forth  what  is  obvious  and  plain,  and  to  cast  what  light  I 
can  upon  what  is  in  its  own  nature  obscure,  or  has  been  made  ob- 
scure by  an  improper  treatment. 

And  as  no  one  can  rightly  understand  the  gospel  doctrine  of 
justification,  without  a  just  conception  of  the  character  and  state 
of  those  who  are  to  be  justified,  I  shall  direct  your  attention,  first 
of  all,  to  this  point. 

It  must  then  be  well  considered  and  kept  in  mind,  that  those 
■who  are  to  be  justified,  are  transgressors  of  the  divine  law  ;  by 
nature  children  of  wrath  ;  and  enemies  to  God  by  wicked  works. 
According  to  the  Apostle,  Rom.  4:  5,  God  justifies  the  ungodly. 
All  men  have  sinned,  and  they  are  all  to  be  regarded  as  sinners. 
And  if  they  afterwards  cease  to  sin,  they  must  still  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  be  regarded  as  sinners.  Their  personal  ill-desert  as 
transgressors  is  not  done  away  because  they  do  not  continue  to 
transgress.  A  man  who  has  committed  murder,  is  always  consid- 
ered as  guilty  of  that  crime.  If,  when  brought  before  a  court  of 
justice,  he  pleads  not  guilty,  then  evidence  is  produced  that  he 
actually  committed  the  crime  charged  against  him.     He  may  say, 


JUSTIFICATION.  15T 

he  did  it  ten  years  ago.  So  be  it.  He  committed  murder  ;  and  that 
is  the  thing  he  is  charged  with.  He  may  say,  he  did  it  only  once. 
Be  it  so.  He  is  charged  with  doing  it  only  once.  His  haviiv; 
committed  the  murderous  deed  so  long  ago  does  not  alter  the  case, 
as  he  is  the  very  man  who  did  it.  The  fact  that  he  has  not  re- 
peated the  offence  does  not  diminish  the  criminality  of  that  one 
offence.  The  law,  justice,  truth,  conscience,  —  his  own  conscience 
and  that  of  oihers,  all  pronounce  him  guilty  of  murder,  —  aa 
really  guilty  as  if  his  hands  were  now  stained  with  the  blood  of 
the  victim  ;  and  he  dies  as  a  murderer,  according  to  that  ancient 
and  unrepealed  law,  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall 
his  blood  be  shed."  And  if  he  is  pardoned,  he  is  pardoned  as  a 
murderer.  That  is,  he  is  freed  from  the  punishment  which  law 
and  justice  denounce  against  him  for  the  heinous  offence  he  has 
committed.  Whatever  may  be  the  reason  of  his  pardon  in  the 
mind  of  the  magistrate,  his  desert  of  punishment  as  a  murderer 
remains  untouched  ;  unless  indeed  new  evidence  has  come  to  light, 
proving  him  to  be  innocent  of  the  crime.  But  in  this  case  he 
would  be  acquitted  as  an  innocent  man,  not  pardoned  as  a  guilty 
man.  And  so  release  from  punishment  would  be  a  matter  of  jus- 
tice. 

All  this  is  true  in  regard  to  transgressors  of  the  divine  law, 
which  is  holy,  just  and  good.  Whatever  the  penalty  of  that  law 
is,  they  deserve  to  endure  it.  Their  exposure  to  the  penalty 
arises  simply  from  their  having  transgressed  the  law.  Neither 
time  nor  circumstances  can  alter  the  law,  or  the  fact  that  they 
have  transgressed  it,  or  their  desert  of  punishment.  If  they  are 
punished,  they  are  punished  as  transgressors,  according  to  the 
just  penalty  of  the  violated  law.  If  they  are  pardoned,  thevare 
pardoned  as  transgressors.  God  forgives  their  sins,  and  forgives 
them  as  sinners.  Whatever  may  be  the  reason  or  ground  of  their 
forgiveness  in  the  mind  of  God,  it  does  not  imply  that  they  are 
not  transgressors,  or  that  they  do  not  deserve  to  endure  the  pen- 
alty of  the  violated  law.  It  is  then  an  unalterable  truth,  that 
men  are  transgressors,  and  that  they  must  be  regarded  as  such, 
and  that  in  law  and  justice  they  deserve  the  punishment  threat- 
VOL.    III.  14 


158  JUSTIFICATION. 

ened ;  and  consequently,  if  they  are  exempt  from  that  punish- 
ment, it  must  be  by  an  act  of  mercy  on  the  part  of  God.  These 
things  must  remain  unaltered,  whatever  measures  may  be  adopted 
by  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  God  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sinners. 

Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  gospel  dispensation  and  the  ex- 
ercise of  divine  mercy  towards  the  human  race,  instead  of  imply- 
ing that  they  are  innocent,  does,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
proceed  on  the  principle  that  they  are  personally  ill-deserving, 
and  justly  exposed  to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  And  when  any  of 
them  are  brought  to  a  right  mind,  they  feel  and  acknowledge  this 
to  be  their  case.  Their  consciences  and  hearts  agree  with  the 
sentence  of  the  law,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die."  This 
law  is  unchangeable,  like  the  God  from  whom  it  proceeds.  Other 
things  may  change  ;  but  the  law  of  God,  and  the  blame-worthi- 
ness of  transgressors,  cannot  change.  Transgressors  may  receive 
favors  from  God,  but  they  will  be  undeserved  favors.  They  may 
be  saved  ;  but  their  salvation  will  be  of  grace.  They  may  be- 
come holy  ;  but  this  also  will  be  of  grace ;  and  their  becoming 
holy  will  neither  do  away  nor  diminish  their  desert  of  blame  for 
the  sin  they  have  committed.  And  when  it  is  said,  that  sin  is  not 
imputed  to  those  who  believe,  that  their  guilt  is  taken  away,  that 
God  will  not  remember  their  sins,  and  that  no  one  can  lay  any 
thing  to  their  charge  ;  the  language  must  be  understood  in  har- 
mony with  the  facts  above  stated ;  otherwise  it  would  convey  per- 
nicious error. 

But  to  what  does  Scripture  refer,  when  it  speaks  of  the  law  and 
the  deeds  of  the  law,  and  particularly  when  it  declares  that  we 
are  not  justified  by  law  ?     What  is  the  prevailing  Scripture  use  ? 

Let  any  one  examine  the  passages  in  which  the  law  of  Grod  is 
mentioned  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets,  and  he  cannot  doubt 
that  they  refer  to  the  moral  as  well  as  the  ceremonial  law.  Con- 
sult Psalm  19:  7 — 11,  and  different  parts  of  Psalm  cxix,  as  ex- 
amples. The  law  of  the  Lord,  his  statutes  and  commandments, 
which  are  declared  to  be  so  excellent,  and  so  efficacious  for  good, 
must  be  understood  to  be  primarily  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law. 


JUSTIFICATION.  16& 

including  however  the  ritual  part,  when  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  require.  The  New  Testament  usage  is  evidently  the  same. 
In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Christ  speaks  of  "  the  law."  What 
law  ?  Why,  the  law  which  was  not  to  be  desti'oyed  or  set  aside, 
(Matt.  5:  17 — 20,)  which  can  be  no  other  than  the  moral  law. 
The  same  is  manifest  in  Matt.  22:  36 — 40,  where  we  find  a  sum- 
mary of  the  moral  law,  that  is,  the  command  to  love ;  and  in 
Matt.  23:  23,  where  moral  duties  are  referred  to  as  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law.  See  also  Luke  16:  17,  18.  Attentive  read- 
ers will  indeed  see,  that  Christ  speaks  of  the  law  in  a  variety  of 
senses,  sometimes  intending  a  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  sometimes 
the  ceremonial  law,  sometimes  the  moral  law,  and  sometimes  both 
the  ceremonial  and  the  moral.  The  context  and  the  particular 
subject  of  discourse  generally  make  it  evident  which  of  the  senses 
is  intended.  But  when  any  are  spoken  of,  who  sought  to  be  jus- 
tified by  their  own  works,  or  who  relied  upon  their  own  righteous- 
ness to  procure  the  divine  favor,  the  moral  precepts  are  specially 
referred  to,  although  the  ritual  part  of  the  law  is  included.  Thus 
in  Luke  18:  11,  12,  the  boasting  Pharisee  claimed  the  merit  of 
having  done  moral  as  well  as  ceremonial  duties.  Again ;  when 
the  question  was  proposed,  which  is  the  great  commandment  of 
the  law,  the  answer  brought  out  the  command  requiring  love. 

Proceeding  farther,  we  find  that  when  the  sacred  writers  pro- 
fessedly handle  the  subject  of  our  being  justified  by  law,  or  by 
works,  they  refer  directly  to  moral  precepts.  See  Acts  13:  38, 
39.  Paul  said  to  the  Jews  at  Antioch,  "  Be  it  known  unto  you, 
that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ; 
and  by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from 
which  they  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  They 
are  completely  justified  —  entirely  acquitted  from  the  guilt  of  all 
their  transgressions  of  law,  —  for  which  full  acquittal  no  provision 
was  made  in  the  law  of  Moses. 

But  this  is  made  still  clearer  by  other  places.  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  the  Apostle  first  proves,  that  all  men  are  sinners 
under  condemnation,  and  thus  prepares  us  to  understand  the  doc- 
trine of  justification.     There   are   only  two  ways  of  enjoying  the 


160 


JUSTIFICATION, 


favor  of  God  and  the  blessedness  of  his  kingdom.  The  first  ia, 
by  complete  obedience  —  by  doing  all  things  written  in  the  law. 
To  such  there  is  a  promise  of  life.  "  Ho  that  doeth  these  things 
shall  live  by  them."  But  all  men  are  transgressors,  and  are 
therefore  cut  off  from  the  possibility  of  being  saved  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  law,  and  are  under  the  curse.  The  other 
way  of  salvation  is  revealed  in  the  gospel.  Christ  died  for  our 
sins,  and  thus  procured  forgiveness.  Here  is  salvation  by  grace. 
And  in  this  free  and  gracious  salvation  we  become  interested  by 
faith.  All  this  is  taught  Rom.  iii.  The  Apostle,  after  showing 
that  all  are  guilty  before  God,  comes  directly  to  his  conclusion, 
V.  20,  "  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  his  sight."  What  law  ?  You  find  an  answer  in  the 
same  verse  ;  "  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin."  The 
Apostle  shows  that  it  is  by  the  moral  law  that  we  have  the  knowl- 
edge of  sin,  in  Rom.  7:  7.  "  I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the 
law  ;"  and  then  he  gives  an  instance  of  this,  showing  what  law  he 
meant ;  "  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  i.  e.,  sinful  desire,  except  the 
law  had  said,  thou  shalt  not  covet."  The  moral  law  is  plainly 
meant  in  both  places  ;  for  in  both  the  Apostle  speaks  of  that  law 
by  which  we  have  the  knowledge  of  moral  evil ;  and  in  the  last 
place  referred  to,  he  makes  it  perfectly  plain  that  he  refers  to  the 
moral  law,  by  specifying  one  of  the  moral  precepts.  It  is  then 
by  the  deeds  of  this  law,  that  no  flesh  can  be  justified  before 
God. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  when  the  Apostle  asserts,  Gal.  2:  16, 
that  we  are  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  he  has  a  special 
reference  to  ritual  observances.  Those  observances  were  the  par- 
ticular things  in  question,  and  it  was  a  matter  of  course  that  he 
should  tell  those  who  made  so  much  of  ritual  observances,  that 
they  could  not  be  justified  by  them.  The  principle  is  universal ; 
we  cannot  be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  either  moral  or  cere- 
monial. If  it  is  true  that  transgressors  cannot  be  justified  by  any 
works  of  obedience,  even  by  obedience  to  the  spiritual  precepts  of 
the  law  ;  it  is  certain  that  they  cannot  be  justified  by  obedience 
to  the  ceremonial  precepts.     This  is  what  the  Apostle  had  occa- 


JUSTIFICATION.  161 

sion  to  say,  Gal.  2:  16.  He  merely  asserted  and  applied  a  par- 
ticular truth  contained  in  a  general  truth.  The  circumstances  of 
the  case  required  him  to  refer  to  the  law  in  this  lower  sense,  that 
is,  to  its  ceremonial  precepts.  But  in  other  cases,  his  proposition 
that  we  cannot  be  justified  by  law,  must  be  taken  in  its  largest 
sense,  the  moral  precepts  being  specially  intended,  while  the  ritual 
precepts  are  also  included.  In  Rom.  iii,  this  is  clearly  the  case. 
The  Apostle,  having  declared  that  all  men  are  transgressors  of 
God's  holy  law,  and  having  stated  his  conclusion,  that  we  cannot 
be  justified  by  works  of  law,  points  out  the  new  and  living  way  of 
being  justified.  "  God  hath  set  forth  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins."  It  is  by  this  new  method  of  justification,  here 
called  the  law  of  faith ^  that  all  boasting  is  excluded.  In  v.  28, 
the  Apostle  repeats  what  he  had  before  said,  v.  20.  "  Therefore 
we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of 
law.  I  ask  again,  what  law?  v.  31  furnishes  an  answer,  by  "as- 
serting that  the  law  spoken  of,  is  the  law  which  the  gospel  estab- 
lishes. But  it  is  the  moral  law  which  is  established  by  the  gospel, 
while  the  ceremonial  code  is  abolished. 

In  Rom.viijthe  Apostle  represents  the  law  of  which  he  speaks 
to  be  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  says  that  he  delights  in  it  after  the 
inward  man.  No  one  can  suppose  he  would  speak  thus  of  any 
law,  except  that  which  is  moral  and  spiritual.  He  often  tells  us 
how  happy  he  was  to  be  freed  from  the  burden  of  the  ceremonial 
law. 

In  Rom.  10:  1 — 5,  the  Apostle  again  treats  of  this  great  gos- 
pel doctrine  in  opposition  to  prevaihng  errors. '  The  Jews  went 
about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness  by  works  of  law.  He 
says,  this  was  vain ;  that  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  right- 
eousness to  every  one  that  beheveth.  To  make  this  clear,  he 
again  affirms,  that  the  only  condition  of  justification  by  the  law,  is 
described  by  Moses,  Lev.  18:  5,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes  and 
judgments  ;  which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live  by  them."  To  sup- 
pose that  moral  precepts  were  not  included  would  be  doing  palpa- 
ble injustice  to  the  writer.     This  passage  is  adverted  to  by  Nehe- 

14* 


162  JUSTIFICATION. 

miah  in  a  manner  which  clearly  indicates  what  sense  he  put 
upon  it.  He  says,  "  they  dealt  proudly,  and  hearkened  not  to 
thy  commaridments,  but  sinned  against  thy  judgments,  which  if  a 
man  do,  he  shall  Hve  in  them."  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if 
the  Prophet,  when  describing  the  great  wickedness  of  the  people, 
charged  them  with  nothing  but  a  neglect  of  the  prescribed  out- 
ward observances,  which  was  really  the  smallest  part  of  their 
guilt. 

If  you  doubt  whether  perfect  and  continual  obedience  is  re- 
quired in  order  to  our  being  justified  by  law,  the  doubt  may  be 
removed  by  considering  on  whom  the  curse  of  the  law  falls.  In 
Gal.  3:  10,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  the  law  for  the  very  purpose  of 
showing  that  we  cannot  be  justified  by  it ;  and  in  pursuance  of 
this  object,  he  says,  "  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law,  are 
under  the  curse  ;  for  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every  one  that  contin- 
ueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them." 
The  quotation  is  from  Deut.  27:  26.  "  Cursed  is  he  that  con- 
firmeth  not  all  the  words  of  this  law  to  do  them."  This  is  a 
summary  of  the  curses  pronounced  by  Moses  for  a  great  variety 
of  ofiences.  And  it  should  be  particvdarly  remarked,  that  the 
transgressions  specified  tvere  all  transgressions  of  moral  precepts, 
710  mention  having  been  made  of  offences  against  the  law  of  rites 
and  ceremonies.  Now  if  those  fall  under  the  curse,  who  do  not 
perfectly  obey  the  law,  then  the  promise  of  life  cannnt  apply  to 
any  one  who  has  transgressed.  How  obvious  then  is  the  sound- 
ness of  the  Apostle's  conclusion,  that  no  transgressor  of  the  law 
can  ever  be  justified  by  the  law.  Having  sinned,  they  are  under 
the  curse.  This  is  the  way  in  which  the  Apostle  treats  the  sub- 
ject of  justification.  His  language  is  very  plain,  his  argument 
clear,  and  his  conclusion  obvious  and  certain.  Whatever  else  is 
obscure  in  his  writings,  there  is  no  obscurity  here.  He  has,  with 
remarkable  clearness,  expressed  in  words  the  great  truth  he  had 
in  his  mind,  that  no  man  can  he  justified  before  God  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  that  is,  by  anything  he  can  do  in  the  way  of  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  ;  that  the  only  ground  or  procuring  cause  of  jus- 
tification is  the  vicarious  death  and  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ; 


JUSTIFICATION.  16^ 

and  tJiat  the  only  way  for  sinners  to  obtain  justification  for  them- 
selves^ is  to  exercise  faith  in  Christ.  This  is  the  all  important 
truth  which  the  Apostle  often  affirms,  and  which  he  always  affirms 
when  he  has  occasion  to  touch  upon  the  subject.  And  he  never 
says  anything  contrary  to  this. 

Now  how  utterly  inconsistent  it  would  be  with  the  manifest 
design  of  the  Apostle,  and  the  whole  train  of  his  reasonings,  to 
say,  that  while  we  cannot  be  justified  by  the  ceremonial  law,  there 
is  another  law,  that  is,  the  moral  law,  by  which  we  may  be  justi- 
fied !  K  ritual  observances  and  those  only  are  excluded,  and  if 
we  may,  after  all,  be  justified  by  obedience  to  the  moral  law ; 
then  where  is  the  necessity  of  a  new  and  living  way  through  the 
mediation  of  Christ  ?  And  how  can  it  be  shown  to  be  impossible 
for  those  who  are  justified,  to  glory  in  the  presence  of  God  ? 
Paul  teaches,  that  justification  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  would  frus- 
trate the  grace  of  God.  Accordingly  he  takes  care  to  say.  Gal. 
2:  21,  "  I  do  not  frustrate  the  grace  of  God  ;  for  if  righteousness 
came  by  the  law,  then  is  Christ  dead  in  vain."  If  he  had  taught 
that  we  can  be  justified,  or  have  a  justifying  righteousness,  by 
our  own  doings,  he  would  have  frustrated  the  grace  of  God.  For 
salvation  by  grace  is  everywhere  opposed  to  salvation  by  works. 
In  Rom.  9:  30  —  32  the  Apostle  sets  it  forth  as  the  fatal  mistake 
of  the  Jews,  that  they  sought  to  establish  a  personal  righteousness, 
or  to  obtain  justification  by  the  works  of  the  law,  while  believing 
Gentiles,  and  believing  Jews  too,  obtained  it  by  faith.  Had  there 
been  a  law,  ceremonial  or  moral,  which  could  give  life,  then  right- 
eousness would  have  come  by  that  law.  The  Apostle  further 
says  ;  "  To  him  that  worketh"  (that  is,  to  him  that  obtains  salva- 
tion by  working,)  "  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of 
debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh  not"  i.  e.  for  the  purpose  of  justi- 
fication, "  but  believeth  on  him  who  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his 
faith  is  counted  to  him  for  righteousness."  In  Rom.  3:  20 — 24 
he  goes  over  the  same  subject.  He  seems  to  think  he  can  never 
say  too  much  to  illustrate  and  confirm  this  great  gospel  doctrme. 
"  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his 
sight.    But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the  law  is  mani- 


164  JUSTIFICATION. 

fest,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets,  even  the  right- 
eousness of  God  which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  unto  all  and 
upon  all  them  that  believe  ;  for  there  is  no  difference  ;  for  all  have 
sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God  ;  being  justified  by  his 
grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 

The  reason  why  the  Apostle  asserted  this  doctrine  so  earnestly, 
and  in  so  many  places,  and  took  so  much  pauis  to  establish  it,  was, 
that  the  doctrine  concerns  the  whole  human  race,  aU  being  sin- 
ners ;  that  it  is  an  essential  doctrine  in  the  gospel  scheme,  show- 
ing that  salvation  is  to  be  obtained  not  by  our  own  works,  but  by 
faith  in  Christ,  our  Redeemer.  The  Apostle  had  special  reason  to 
insist  upon  this  in  his  instructions  to  the  Jews,  because  they  were 
so  prone  to  rely  for  justification  upon  their  own  works.  But  he 
insists  upon  the  same  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  Gentiles.  As  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  are  all  under  sin  and  condemnation,  they  can 
be  justified  and  saved  only  by  grace  through  the  mediation  of 
Christ.  And  there  is  always  occasion  for  us  to  insist  upon  the 
doctrine,  because  men,  however  guilty,  are  everywhere  inclined 
to  look  to  their  own  doings  for  justification,  and  to  neglect  the 
doctrine  of  free  grace  through  the  blood  of  Christ. 

We  have  now,  I  think,  reached  a  certainty  in  regard  to  the 
main  point  before  us,  —  which  is  the  central  point  in  the  scheme 
of  Christianity.  Here  we  find  no  place  for  doubt.  We  do  not 
depend  merely  upon  indirect  allusions,  or  upon  impUcations  or 
inferences,  however  plain.  Our  doctrine  is  directly,  and  in  so 
many  words,  affirmed.  And  we  are  sure  we  have  not  mistaken 
the  meaning  of  the  Apostle.  For,  in  the  first  place,  we  have  to  do 
with  the  expressions  he  uses,  when  he  undertakes  jyrofessedly  to 
teach  and  illustrate  the  doctrine,  and  to  defend  it  against  opposers. 
Secondly.  His  expressions  are  exceedingly  simple,  and  we  clear- 
ly see  what  their  sense  is,  and  that  it  cannot  be  any  other.  Third- 
ly. The  general  argument  of  the  Apostle  and  the  end  he  has  in 
view  imperiously  require  the  sense  we  have  given  to  his  words. 
Fourthly.  He  asserts  the  doctrine  many  times,  on  various  occa- 
sions, and  in  different  connections.  If  then  human  language, 
used  by  an  inspired  teacher,  can  bring  before  us  any  portion  of 


JUSTIFICATION.  165 

divine  truth,  and  invest  it  with  the  clearness  of  demonstration,  it 
has  done  this  in  the  present  case ;  and  we  are  sure  that  the 
Apostle  meant  to  teach  us  this  momentous  doctrine,  namely ;  that 
sinners,  such  as  all  men  are,  cannot  be  jastified  by  works  of  obedi- 
ence to  law  ;  that  if  we  are  justified,  it  must  be  in  another  and 
very  different  way,  that  is,  by  grace^  or  on  the  ground  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  received  by  faith;  and  that  good  works,  or 
works  of  obedience  to  the  laiv,  however  important  and  indispensable 
on  other  accounts  in  the  accomplishment  of  our  salvation,  are  ex- 
cluded from  any  influence  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  our  justi- 
fication before  God. 

But  when  we  inquire  more  particularly  into  the  nature  and 
ground  of  our  justification,  no  small  difficulty  arises  in  making  out 
exactly  the  meaning  of  the  terms  which  are  employed  in  Scripture, 
in  religious  discourse,  and  in  our  Confessions  of  Faith.  In  this 
case  as  in  some  others,  we  may  more  easily  understand  the 
truth  itself,  than  the  various  modes  of  speech  in  which  it  is  con- 
veyed to  us.  To  prepare  the  way  then  for  clearing  the  subject 
of  perplexity,  I  shall  first  take  a  more  general  view  of  the  doctrine 
itself.  Dispensing  as  far  as  may  be  with  those  terms  whose 
meaning  has  been  obscured  by  controversy,  I  shall  inquire  what 
are  the  real  blessings  which  Christ  bestows  upon  his  people,  and 
which  constitute  gospel  salvation.  This  inquiry  can  be  well 
enough  pursued  without  concerning  ourselves  at  present  with  the 
precise  meaning  of  such  words  as  justification,  righteousness  and 
imputation,  and  without  crossing  the  opinions  of  any  candid  and 
devout  readers  of  the  Scriptures.  I  fondly  cleave  to  the  idea,  that 
we  may  exhibit  the  substance  of  this  gospel  truth  in  such  a  man- 
ner, as  will  preclude  controversy  among  those  who  love  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  sincerity. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  exceedingly  evident,  that  the  great  salvar 
tion  which  Christ  procured,  and  of  which  all  real  Christians  par- 
take, includes  the  following  blessings  ;  namely  ; 

1.  Forgiveness  of  sin  ;  that  is,  exemption  from  the  punishment 
involved  in  the  penalty  of  the  law.  There  is  no  need  of  deter- 
mining now,  whether  complete  forgiveness,  that  is,  complete  ex- 


166  JUSTIFICATION. 

emption  from  the  penal  consequences  of  sin  takes  place  at  once 
on  believing,  or  whether  it  only  commences  then,  and  is  completed 
afterwards.  All  agree,  that  believers  ultimately  experience  a 
complete  deliverance  from  all  the  evils  which  are  threatened  for 
the  violation  of  the  divine  law ;  and  nothing  is  more  certain,  than 
that  this  is  one  of  the  blessings  procured  by  the  merciful  agency 
of  the  Saviour. 

2.  The  salvation  of  believers  implies  their  sanctification.  They 
are  in  fact  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  and  made 
obedient  and  holy.  Without  this,  they  could  neither  perform  the 
service  nor  enjoy  the  blessedness  of  God's  people.  Without  this, 
forgiveness  itself,  in  the  Scripture  sense,  would  be  impossible. 
For  if  they  remained  under  the  dominion  of  sin,  they  would  of 
course  suffer  the  miseries  necessarily  resulting  from  the  violence 
of  their  evil  passions,  and  from  the  reproaches  of  their  guilty  con- 
science. These  inward  disorders  would  entail  upon  them  endless 
trouble  and  distress.  They  would  be  destitute  of  all  the  comforts 
of  religion.  The  presence  and  friendship  of  God  they  could  not 
enjoy ;  for  a  holy  God  cannot  have  communion  with  the  unholy. 
Their  own  disposition  would  exclude  them  from  the  employments 
and  joys  of  heaven.  They  would  be  a  hell  to  themselves.  It 
must  then  be  that  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  an 
essential  part  of  gospel  salvation.  Forgiveness  itself  presupposes 
and  involves  it ;  inasmuch  as  the  blessings  of  forgiveness  cannot 
be  really  enjoyed,  nor  the  evils  inherent  in  a  sinful  state  or  conse- 
quent upon  it  avoided,  without  holiness.  At  any  rate,  the  salva- 
tion which  is  the  portion  of  behevers,  does  in  reality  imply  deli- 
verance from  sin,  and  restoration  to  the  moral  image  of  God. 

3.  Salvation  involves  perfect  happiness.  I  mention  this  dis- 
tinctly, though  implied  under  the  preceding  heads.  The  happi- 
ness of  believers  begins  in  this  life.  Their  joy  is  at  times  un- 
speakable, and  full  of  glory.  But  all  this  is  only  a  foretaste  of 
the  perfect  and  endless  blessedness  of  heaven. 

The  salvation  of  believers  comprises  all  the  blessings,  —  all  the 
forms  of  good  above  mentioned.  They  are  saved  from  suffering. 
They  are  saved  from  sin.     And  they  will  enjoy  complete  and 


JUSTIFICATION.  167 

unceasing  happiness.  These  three,  though  capable  of  being  dis- 
tinctly considered,  are  inseparably  joined  together,  and  really 
constitute  the  great  salvation.  Whenever  one  part  is  mentioned, 
the  other  parts  are  implied.  Neither  of  them  could  be  what  it  is, 
without  the  other.  Forgiveness  could  not  be  to  us  the  unspeaka- 
ble good  signified  by  the  word  without  sanctification.  An  unsanc- 
tified  sinner  might,  indeed,  be  freed  from  this  and  that  particular 
suffering ;  but  he  could  not  be  freed  from  all  suffering,  nor  from 
that  which  is  most  of  all  dreadful.  He  would  be  subject  to 
malignant  and  tormenting  passions  and  unsatisfied  desires  ;  to  the 
reproaches  of  conscience,  to  the  miseries  of  a  diseased  mind,  and 
to  the  want  of  the  good  for  which  the  mind  was  made.  We 
cannot  have  complete  forgiveness,  —  that  is,  complete  deliverance 
from  the  evil  consequences  of  sin,  —  without  regaining  the  good 
which  we  have  lost  by  sin.  Would  a  Christian  feel  that  he  had 
received  the  blessings  of  full  forgiveness,  while  banished  from  the 
presence  of  God,  and  thus  deprived  of  the  enjoyment  of  the 
supreme  good  ?  But  this  must  necessarily  be  his  lot,  while  under 
the  dominion  of  sin.  Forgiveness,  then,  in  the  large  sense  in 
which  we  have  now  considered  it,  is  inseparably  joined  with  sanc- 
tification and  the  enjoyment  of  God  here  and  hereafter. 

Or  the  matter  may  be  stated  in  another  way.  The  penalty  of 
the  law  is  commonly,  and  I  think  justly,  considered  as  implying 
temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal  death  ;  which  I  understand  to  be 
the  death  of  the  body,  together  with  bodily  disorders  and  pains  ; 
the  death  of  the  soul,  that  is,  the  withdrawment  of  God's  sancti- 
fying influence,  and  the  consequent  and  continued  cessation  of 
holy  affection,  or  spiritual  life  ;  and  the  endless  misery  of  the 
future  world.  These  tremendous  evils  are  all  involved  in  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  Now,  what  is  forgiveness  but  a  remission  of 
the  penalty,  or  a  removal  of  the  evils  involved  in  the  penalty  ? 
And  what  is  complete  forgiveness,  but  the  full  remission  of  the 
whole  penalty  ?  What  is  it  but  freeing  believers  from  temporal, 
spiritual,  and  eternal  death  ?  And  how  can  they  be  freed  from 
death,  thus  understood,  without  being  restored  to  the  opposite  life, 
—  the  spiritual,  happy  life  which  would  have  been  secured  to 


168  JUSTIFICATION. 

mankind,  had  they  completely  obeyed  the  divine  law,  and  which, 
under  the  7iew  dispensation,  is  secured  to  those  who  beheve  in 
Christ  and  obey  his  gospel  ? 

Or,  the  views  of  the  subject  which  I  have  here  suggested,  may 
be  otherwise  set  forth  in  tliis  way.  The  condemnation  of  Adam 
subjected  him  to  all  the  evils  involved  in  the  penalty  of  the  vio- 
lated law,  that  is,  death.  And  one  of  the  greatest  of  these  evils 
was  the  withdrawal  of  that  divine  influence  which  is  the  source 
of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul.  Of  course,  had  he  continued  under 
the  just  condemnation  of  the  law,  he  would  have  been  forever 
deprived  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  forever  desti- 
tute of  his  holy  fruits.  But  under  the  gospel  dispensation  the 
case  is  reversed  ;  and  the  salvation,  of  which  Christ  is  the  Author, 
impUes  the  removal  of  all  the  evil  of  the  threatened  death,  and 
the  bestowal  of  the  opposite  good  —  a  primary  and  essential  part 
of  this  being  the  gift  of  the  renovating  and  sanctifying  Spirit,  as 
tiie  unceasing  spring  of  a  new  and  holy  life  in  the  soul,  connected 
with  the  free  remission  of  the  merited  punishment,  and  the  endless 
enjoyment  of  the  blessedness  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  particular  subject  of  justification. 
And  here  we  shall  see  at  once,  that  justification  implies  complete 
forgiveness.  So  it  is  represented,  Romans  iv.  The  Apostle  is 
treating  particularly  of  justification.  Verse  5,  "To  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  that  beheveth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness ; "  that  is,  he  is  justified. 
The  Apostle  then  proceeds  thus,  verses  6 — 8,  "  Even  as  David 
also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man,  unto  whom  God  im- 
putetli  righteousness  without  works  ;  saying,  blessed  are  they 
whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered. 
Blessed  is  the  man  to  Avhom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin." 
Here  we  learn  that  God's  not  imputing  sin  and  his  imputmg  right- 
eousness, is  the  same  as  forgiving  or  covering  sin.  And  this  we 
understand  to  be  the  remission  of  the  penalty  for  disobedience,  or 
the  taking  away  of  the  evils  involved  in  the  penalty,  as  above 
explained.  Our  doctrine,  then,  would  stand  in  this  form.  Be- 
lievers are  justified  not  by  their  oivn  works,  hut  on  the  ground  of 


JUSTIFICATION.  169 

what  Christ  has  done  for  them.  The  penalty  of  the  law,  including 
temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal  death,  is  removed,  and  a  restora- 
tion to  the  opposite  life  granted,  through  the  mediation  of  Christ. 
He  bestows  upon  believers  a  complete  salvation  ;  exemption  from 
evil,  natural  and  moral,  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  highest  good  of 
which  they  are  capable.  Now  it  is  very  plain  that  salvation,  in 
this  comprehensive.  Scriptural  sense,  is  not  the  reward  or  the 
consequence  of  our  own  obedience  or  holiness  ;  for  our  holiness,  our 
sanctification  by  the  Spirit,  is  a  part  of  this  great  salvation. 
Christ  came  to  "  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  to  purify  us  to 
himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works."  If  we  are 
delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  it  is  he  that  has  deli- 
vered us.  If  we  are  restored  to  the  moral  image  of  God,  it  is 
he  that  has  restored  us.  If  we  have  faithfully  served  God  in  the 
performance  of  good  works,  we  must  each  one  say,  as  the  Apostle 
said,  after  doing  so  much  more  than  we  have  done,  "  Not  I,  but 
the  grace  of  Christ  which  was  with  me."  All  good  in  our  hearts 
and  lives  must  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  as  a  part  of  the  salvation  of 
which  he  is  the  Author.  In  our  natural  state,  we  are  the  children 
of  disobedience.  If  we  are  brought  to  obey,  it  is  because  Christ 
has  turned  us  from  sin  and  written  his  law  upon  our  hearts.  The 
beginning  and  the  continuance  of  holy  obedience  is  from  Christ,  as 
much  as  deHverance  from  the  wrath  to  come,  or  the  enjoyment  of 
heavenly  felicity. 

As  to  our  works  —  suppose  them  to  be  good,  yea,  perfectly 
good,  as  they  will  finally  be,  and  to  be  continued  for  ever  so  long 
a  time  ;  still,  as  has  already  been  shown,  we  are  not  thereby 
entitled,  on  the  ground  of  law,  to  the  favor  of  God.  Imperfect 
obedience,  and  even  a  return  from  disobedience  to  perfect  obe- 
dience, does  not  by  any  means  constitute  the  legal  condition  of 
life.  On  the  ground  of  God's  righteous  law  as  the  rule  of  his 
administration,  no  one  who  has  sinned,  whatever  may  be  his  sub- 
sequent conduct,  can  have  any  personal  claim  to  life,  as  a  matter 
of  justice.  If  any  one  of  our  race  is  saved,  it  must  be  of  grace. 
He  does  not  merit  salvation  by  his  works,  but  receives  it  as  a  free 
gift.     Christ  then  is,  in  the  fullest  sense,  the  Author  of  our  salva- 

VOL.  in.  15 


170  JUSTIFICATION. 

tion.  Every  part  of  it  comes  from  him.  "  He  is  made  of  God 
unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification  and  redemp- 
tion." Our  justification,  whether  it  is  considered  as  including 
the  whole  of  salvation  or  a  part  of  it,  is  altogether  of  grace.  If 
it  is  considered  as  denoting  mere  forgiveness,  or  deliverance  from 
penal  suffering,  in  the  limited  sense,  or  if  understood  in  the  large 
and  comprehensive  sense,  including  not  only  deliverance  from 
penal  suffering,  but  restoration  to  the  image  and  favor  of  God  and 
the  happiness  of  his  kingdom ;  the  result  is  one  and  the  same. 
Justification,  taken  in  either  way,  is  not  and  cannot  be  of  ivorks. 
It  does  not  come  to  us  on  the  ground  of  our  obedience.  Though 
our  works  may  be  good  in  themselves,  and  approved  of  God,  and 
though  they  may  be  multiplied  to  any  conceivable  extent,  they  do 
not  constitute,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  meritorious  came  of  our 
justification. 


LECTURE      CI. 


NATURE   AND    GROUND    OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

The  subject  before  us  is  so  important,  and  in  some  respects 
attended  with  so  many  difficulties,  that  it  requires  statements  and 
explanations  still  more  particular  and  exact  than  those  which  were 
given  in  the  last  Lecture.  Even  repetitions  will  be  deemed  par- 
donable, if  they  may  contribute  to  cast  a  clearer  light  on  the  doc- 
trine under  consideration,  or  to  give  it  a  more  deep  and  enduring 
impression  on  the  heart. 

The  word  justification  is  forensic  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  taken 
from  the  proceedings  of  courts  of  justice.  A  man  is  accused  of 
a  crime.  The  charge  against  him  is  examined,  and  he  is  found  to 
be  not  guilty.  Of  course  he  is  regarded  as  an  innocent,  blame- 
less man,  and  enjoys  the  privileges  of  an  unoffending,  upright 
member  of  the  community.  Such  a  man  is  justified  in  the 
literal  sense.  And  here  we  see  the  only  way  in  which  a  man, 
charged  with  a  crime  before  a  judicial  court,  can  escape  punish- 
ment and  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a  citizen.  It  must  be  made  to 
appear  that  he  is  falsely  accused,  and  the  suit  against  him  must 
be  issued  in  his  favor,  and  he  must  in  this  way  stand  justified 
before  the  court  and  before  the  public. 

But  human  beings  can  never  be  justified  before  God  in  such  a 
way  as  this.  They  are  all  charged  with  transgressing  the  divine 
law.  The  charge  is  true,  and  is  proved  to  be  true,  and  they  are 
guilty  and  under  condemnation.  Now  in  what  sense  can  such 
persons  —  persons  known  and  acknowledged  to  be  transgressors  — 


172  JUSTIFICATION. 

be  justified  before  God  ?     In  other  words,  what  is  justification  in 
the  gospel  sense  ? 

Here  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  God  mistakes  the  character 
of  men,  thinking  them  to  be  innocent,  while  they  are  guilty  ;  that 
he  judges  and  declares  those  who  are  transgressors,  not  to  be 
transgressors.     On  the  contrary,  God  often  declares  men  to  be 
transgressors  —  sinners  without  excuse,  and  deserving  of  condem- 
nation.    His  justifying  them  must,  then,  be  in  another  and  very 
difierent  sense.     The  question  is,  in  what  sense  ?     I  answer,  it 
must  be  in  a  secondary  or  figurative  sense.     There  is  a  real, 
though  imperfect  analogy,  between  justification  in  the  literal  or 
legal  sense  and  justification  in  the  gospel  sense  ;  and  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  to  which  we  have  so  often  referred,  is  founded 
on  this  analogy.     When  God  is  said  to  justify  the  ungodly,  the 
meaning  must  be,  that  he  treats  them  and  bestows  favors  upon 
them  as  though  they  were  not  ungodly,  or  as  though  they  had 
always  been  obedient.     He  passes  by  their  sins,  he  does  not 
remember  them,  he  blots  them  out ;  so  that  they  do  not  prevent 
the  bestowment  of  his  favors.     He  exercises  his  kindness  towards 
them,  adopts  them  as  his  children,  and  admits  them  to  the  joys  of 
his  kingdom,  as  though  they  had  never  sinned.     Some  say,  he 
regards  them  or  looks  upon  them  as  innocent,  or  righteous.     But 
their  meaning  must  be,  that  while  he  knows  them  to  be  sinners, 
he  does  not  doom  them  to  sufier  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  treats 
them  as  though  they  were  free  from  sin.     If  we  say,  he  pro- 
nounces them  to  be  just  or  righteous ;  our  meaning  is  not,  that 
he  falls  into  a  mistake,  and  thinks  them  and  declares  them  not 
guilty  when  in  truth  they  are  guilty  ;  but  that  he   exempts  them 
from  punishment  and  confers  upon  them  the  blessings  of  his  love, 
as  really  as  he  would  do  if  they  had  never  sinned.     Such,  accord- 
ing to  my  understanding,  is  gospel  justification.     It  is  a  gracious 
proceeding,  wherein  God  freely  pardons  all  our  sins  and  accepts 
and  treats  us  as  righteous  persons  —  not  that  we  ourselves  have, 
in  his  judgment,  the  personal  righteousness  required  by  the  law, 
but  that  on  some  other  account  he  accepts  and  blesses  us,  as  though 
we  had  it. 


JUSTIFICATION.  173 

Still  justification  does  not  imply,  that  God  treats  believers  and 
bestows  blessings  upon  them  exactly  in  the  same  manner,  or,  at 
present,  in  the  same  degree,  as  he  would  have  done  had  they  been 
perfectly  obedient.  For  the  measure  of  present  good  which  he 
confers  upon  them  must  conform  to  their  present  character,  and 
their  present  capacity  for  enjoyment ;  and,  as  they  are  subject  to 
so  many  faults,  his  manner  of  treating  them  must  be  such  as  will 
administer  the  necessary  disciphne.  When  God  calls  his  people 
to  endure  suffering,  or,  as  it  is  often  expressed,  chastens  them,  or 
inflicts  punishment  upon  them,  he  does  not  do  it  as  an  execution 
of  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  for  the  penalty  is  really  remitted. 
They  are  truly  pardoned.  But,  though  pardoned,  they  are  at 
present  incapable  of  receiving  precisely  and  in  all  respects  the 
same  treatment  from  God,  as  if  they  were  without  sin.  The 
exact  truth  is,  he  now  treats  them  substantially  as  though  they 
possessed  a  complete  personal  righteousness  ;  and  will  finally  give 
them  the  enjoyment  of  that  good  which  was  promised  as  the 
reward  of  unceasing  obedience  —  the  highest  blessedness  of  those 
who  have  never  offended.  If  a  prodigal  son,  who  repents  and 
returns  to  his  home,  possesses  less  capacity  for  enjoyment  than  he 
would  have  possessed  had  he  never  gone  astray  ;  then,  though  he 
is  fully  pardoned  and  restored  to  favor,  he  cannot  at  once  enjoy 
the  same  degree  of  happiness  as  though  his  faculties  had  not 
been  injured  by  vice.  If  he  has  the  remains  of  that  ignorance 
and  bodily  disease  which  resulted  from  his  wicked  conduct,  his 
father  will  put  him,  for  his  benefit,  under  the  care  of  a  skilful 
physician  and  a  faithful  teacher.  And  though  some  of  the  medi- 
cines administered  to  him  may  be  unpleasant  to  his  taste,  and 
some  of  the  lessons  assigned  to  him  hard  to  be  learned,  still  they 
all  come  from  paternal  kindness,  and  do  by  no  means  interfere 
with  his  entire  forgiveness,  or  his  title  to  a  full  inheritance  in  his 
father's  estate.  I  present  this  case  to  illustrate  the  propriety  of 
the  remark,  that  God  does  not  treat  penitent  sinners,  exactly  and 
in  all  respects,  as  though  they  were,  and  always  had  been,  wholly 
free  from  sin.  But  for  ordinary  purposes,  it  is  sufficiently  correct 
to  say,  he  accepts  and  treats  them  as  though  they  had  never 

15* 


174  JUSTIFICATION. 

offended,  or  as  though  they  were  themselves  righteous.  In  truth, 
they  could  not  be  treated  with  more  favor ;  they  could  not  receive 
more  abundant  fruits  of  God's  love,  if  they  had  never  offended. 
Indeed  it  is  plainly  implied  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son, 
and  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  that  God  will  bestow  upon  his 
redeemed  and  penitent  people  some  special  favors,  —  favors  which 
will  distinguish  them  above  those  who  have  never  sinned. 

The  account  I  have  now  given  of  justification  is  sufficiently  sus- 
tained by  that  remarkable  passage  in  Romans  iv,  which  has  been 
already  quoted.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  God  as  justifying  him 
that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  who  justifieth  the  un- 
godly ;  and  then  refers  to  a  passage  in  Psalm  32,  in  which  this 
same  matter  of  justifying  the  believer,  or  counting  his  faith  for 
righteousness,  is  set  forth  in  another  way.  "  Even  as  David  also 
describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputetli 
righteousness  without  works  ;  saying.  Blessed  are  they  whose  ini- 
quities are  forgiven,  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man 
to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  It  is  evident,  that  for- 
giving sin  and  not  imputing  sin  are  expressions  of  the  same 
import ;  and  the  Apostle  "quotes  them  from  David,  to  show  the 
blessed  state  of  those  who  are  justified.  But  we  cannot  conclude 
from  this,  that  justification  includes  no  more  than  forgiveness,  in 
the  restricted  sense.  The  quotation  is  pertinent,  and  answers  the 
purpose  of  the  Apostle,  if  forgiveness,  or  not  imputing  sin,  is  con- 
sidered as  not  only  an  essential  part  of  justification,  but  as  insepa- 
rably connected  with  all  the  other  parts,  or  as  including  all  the 
blessings  of  salvation. 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether  justification  is,  as  our 
Catechism  expresses  it,  an  act  of  God's  grace,  or  whether  it  is  not 
a  mere  fact,  revealed  to  us  by  the  word  of  God  ?  But  in  my 
view  there  is  no  difficulty  here.  Justification  is,  indeed,  a  fact 
made  known  by  revelation.  God  declares  to  us  the  truth,  that 
those  who  believe  are  forgiven  and  accepted.  Accordingly,  as 
soon  as  sinners  beheve,  they  are  pardoned  and  entitled  to  eternal 
life.  But  this  happy  state  of  beUevers,  which  God  thus  plainly 
declares,  is  also  a  matter  in  which  his  agency  is  concerned.     For 


JUSTIFICATION.  175 

he  not  only  declares  believers  to  be  in  a  justified  state,  but  he  in 
fact  brings  them  into  that  state,  and  then  at  once  acts  graciously 
towards  them,  in  bestowing  upon  them  the  blessings  of  justifica- 
tion, and  granting  them  the  tokens  and  fruits  of  his  Fatherly  love. 
There  is  then  a  declaration  of  God  in  his  word  that  believers  are 
justified,  and  a  corresponding  act  of  his  grace  in  his  dispensations 
—  a  merciful  agency  towards  them  who  believe,  extending  through 
their  whole  happy  existence. 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  show  what  justification  is,  I  shall 
next  inquire  more  particularly  what  is  the  ground  of  it,  —  what  is 
the  special  consideration  or  reason,  on  account  of  which  God  jus- 
tifies believers.  I  refer  to  the  'primary  ground,  the  meritorious 
condition  —  implying  a  real  worthiness  or  just  desert  of  the  good 
bestowed. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  handles  this 
subject  of  set  purpose,  and  with  great  particularity  and  clearness, 
declares  again  and  again,  that  we  are  not  justified  by  works. 
"  By  grace  ye  are  saved  ;"  and  salvation  must  surely  include  ^ws- 
tification :  "  Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  He  says 
this  to  Gfentiles  as  well  as  Jews  ;  so  that  works  cannot  mean  merely 
an  observance  of  the  ritual  law  of  Moses.  For  who  could  think 
it  necessary  to  guard  Gentiles  against  boasting  on  account  of  their 
having  conformed  to  Jewish  rites  ?  The  Apostle  manifestly  ex- 
cludes works  of  every  kind,  whether  before  or  after  repentance, 
from  being  the  meritorious  ground  of  justiji cation.  The  grace  by 
which  we  are  justified  and  saved,  is  unmerited  favor.  The  Apos- 
tle teaches  this  as  clearly  and  fully  as  language  can  teach  it. 
What  then  is  the  true  ground  or  meritorious  condition  of  justifica- 
tion ?  Are  sinners  pardoned  and  saved  on  account  of  any  per- 
sonal righteousness  which  they  possess  ?  This  the  Apostle  strong- 
ly denies,  and  this  the  enlightened  conscience  of  every  Christian 
denies.  According  to  the  teachings  of  revelation,  the  ground, 
the  meritorious  condition  of  our  justification  is  the  mediatorial 
work  of  Christ,  including  his  humiliation,  his  obedience  and  death, 
or  "  his  obedience  unto  death."     Rom.  5:  9,  "  We  were  recon- 


176  JUSTIFICATION. 

ciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son  ;"  that  is,  God's  wrath  was 
turned  away,  and  his  favor  procured  by  Christ's  death.  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  chapter,  the  Apostle  treats  the  subject  very  par- 
ticularly and  with  great  clearness  and  earnestness.  "  By  the 
righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justifica- 
tion of  life." — "  By  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous."  Rom.  10:  4,  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth."  Remission  of  sins  is 
often  declared  to  be  through  or  by  the  death  or  the  blood  of  Christ. 
And  remission  is  justification,  or  an  essential  part  of  it.  Accord- 
ing to  our  Catechism,  "  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in 
his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us." 

Some  of  our  best  writers,  in  treating  of  justification,  insist  upon 
the  distinction  between  the  active  and  the  passive  obedience  of 
Christ,  and  ascribe  our  forgiveness  to  his  passive  obedience,  or  his 
Bufierings,  and  our  acceptance  and  eternal  life  to  his  active  obedi- 
ence, or  his  conformity  with  the  moral  law.  But  what  if  it  should 
be  found  that  the  obedience  of  Christ,  spoken  of  in  Rom.  5:  19 
and  in  other  places,  signifies  his  obedience  unto  death,  thus  inclu- 
ding his  atoning  sacrifice  ?  And  what  if  it  should  be  found  too, 
that  fi)rgiveness  of  sin,  as  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  gen- 
erally includes  all  the  blessings  of  grace  ?  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  shall  more  exactly  conform  to  the  example  of  the  sacred  wri- 
ters, and  more  fully  secure  the  efficacy  of  gospel  truth,  if  we 
sometimes  speak  of  the  work  of  our  Redeemer  as  one  whole,  and 
our  salvation  as  a  whole,  and  at  other  times  speak  of  particular 
parts  of  his  work,  for  example,  of  his  incarnation,  his  obedience 
to  the  moral  and  the  ceremonial  law,  and  to  the  special  command 
of  the  Father  that  he  should  lay  down  his  life  for  his  people,  his 
sufierings  in  general,  particularly  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross, 
his  death,  his  blood,  his  sacrifice,  just  as  the  occasion  renders 
suitable,  still  considering  each  of  these  not  as  really  separate  from 
the  others,  but  as  connected  with  them,  and  as  actually  implying 
them. 

The  mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  I  have  said,  is  the  ground  or 


JUSTIFICATION.  177 

meritorious  condition  or  cause  of  our  forgiveness  and  acceptance 
with  God.  This  gospel  doctrine  may  be  illustrated  in  diflferent 
ways,  all  however  leading  to  the  same  result.  It  may  be  illustra- 
ted thus.  Our  perfect  obedience  would,  according  to  the  law,  be 
the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God  and  our  enjoyment  of 
blessedness  in  his  kingdom.  This  ground  of  acceptance  is  want- 
ing. But  the  obedience  and  death  of  our  Redeemer  come  in  the 
place  of  it ;  and  on  this  ground  we  enjoy  the  same  favor  of  God, 
and  the  same  blessedness,  as  we  should  have  done  on  the  ground 
of  our  own  obedience.  This  new  ground  of  our  acceptance  with 
God  is  substituted  for  what  was  originally  appointed  to  be  the 
ground  of  it  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  law. 

But  our  doctrine  may  be  set  forth  in  another  form.  Our  sin 
had  put  a  bar  in  the  way  of  our  salvation.  Divine  law  and  jus- 
tice excluded  us  from  heaven,  and  our  own  character  rendered  us 
incapable  of  enjoying  it.  But  Christ,  by  his  work  as  Redeemer, 
has  satisfied  law  and  justice,  and  thus  opened  the  way  for  our 
forgiveness,  and  for  a  sanctifying  influence  to  come  from  above  to 
make  us  holy,  and  so  to  prepare  us  for  a  holy  salvation.  Jesus 
was  set  forth  as  a  propitiation  —  that  God  might  be  just,  and  the 
justifier  of  beUevers.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  propitiatory 
sacrifice,  that  God  can  save  sinners  in  harmony  with  his  justice. 
This  propitiatory  sacrifice  is  the  foundation,  the  essential,  merito- 
rious condition  of  our  justification.  We  have  no  personal  worthi- 
ness, no  legal  merit.  But  we  can  rely  on  the  all-sufficient  merits 
of  Christ  crucified,  as  the  ground  of  our  forgiveness  and  eternal 
life. 

I  have  spoken  so  repeatedly  and  so  guardedly  respecting  this 
ground  or  condition  of  our  forgiveness  and  acceptance,  because 
there  are  other  things  mentioned  in  Scripture  as  conditions  of  our 
forgiveness  —  conditions,  it  is  true,  of  a  very  different  nature,  but 
still  necessary  to  our  salvation  —  as  really  necessary  as  the  death 
of  Christ,  though  on  very  different  accounts  and  in  a  very  differ- 
ent way.  The  death  of  Christ  is  a  necessary  condition  of  our 
salvation,  because  we  have  sinned,  and  the  righteousness  or  jus- 
tice of  God  must  be  declared,  and  his  law  vindicated,  in  order  to 


178  JUSTIFICATION. 

our  forgiveness.  If  God  should  pardon  sinners  without  the  shed- 
ding of  Christ's  blood,  his  character,  as  moral  Governor,  could 
not  appear  in  a  true  and  honorable  light.  But  the  other  things 
referred  to  —  our  repentance,  faith  and  obedience,  are  conditions 
of  another  kind  —  conditions  rendered  necessary  on  different  ac- 
counts. Logicians  call  each  of  these  conditio  sine  qua  non ;  a 
'Condition  Avithout  which  the  good  contemplated  cannot  be  enjoyed. 
Thus  the  unholy  cannot  enjoy  a  holy  salvation.  And  their  be- 
coming holy  is  a  condition  without'  which  they  cannot  be  saved. 
A  compliance  with  this  condition  is  absolutely  necessary.  Infinite 
grace  cannot  save  us  without  it. 

When  I  speak  of  conditions  of  different  kinds,  I  say  nothing 
which  is  new,  and  nothing  which  is  of  rare  occurrence.  In  num- 
berless cases,  the  attainment  of  a  particular  end  depends  on  vari- 
ous conditions,  some  of  which  are  primary,  and  some  secondary. 
The  relations  of  these  conditions  to  the  end  sought,  though  equally 
real  and  necessary,  are  very  different  in  their  nature.  One  is  a 
condition  in  one  sense,  and  in  that  sense  it  may  be  the  only  condi- 
tion, and  may  properly  be  spoken  of  as  excluding  all  other  condi- 
tions, that  is,  excluding  all  other  things  from  being  conditions  in 
the  sense  in  which  this  is  a  condition.  This,  which  is  an  impor- 
tant point,  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  example.  A  man 
is,  for  a  particular  offence,  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of  a  thousand 
dollars,  or  to  be  imprisoned  for  ten  years.  After  he  has  been  im- 
prisoned for  a  time,  a  friend  of  his  pays  the  fine,  and  so  fulfils  the 
chief  condition,  and  the  onlt/  pecuniary  condition  of  his  liberation  ; 
I  say,  the  only  pecuniary  condition,  because  no  more  money  is 
required.  But  there  may  be  other  conditions  of  a  different  kind. 
The  laws  may  require  bonds  to  be  given  for  the  good  behavior  of 
the  prisoner  ;  and  this  condition  may  also  be  complied  with.  These 
two  conditions  may  be  fulfilled  by  other  men.  But  there  may  be 
other  conditions  which  can  be  fulfilled  by  no  one  but  himself.  For 
he  may  be  required  to  make  and  subscribe  a  promise  that  he  will 
be  obedient  to  the  laws.  His  compliance  with  this  condition  would 
also  be  indispensable.  And  there  is  still  another  condition,  name- 
ly, that  in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  liberation  from  prison,  the 


JUSTIFICATION.  179 

door  of  which  may  now  be  opened  to  him,  he  must  accept  the 
benefit,  and  actually  go  out  from  his  confinement  This  last  con- 
dition, arising  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  ii  as  indispensable  as 
the  others,  but  for  a  different  reason.  TIic  othei-s  were  made  in- 
dispensable by  the  authority  of  the  laws,  and  tiie  decision  of  the 
government.  This  is  indispensable  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
The  hberation  of  the  prisoner  could  not  on  any  supposition  take 
place  without  it.  The  payment  of  the  fine  would  be  the  sjiecial, 
primary  condition,  and  might  properly  be  called  the  pecuniary 
ground  or  the  procuring  cause  of  the  liberation.  It  would  be 
the  only  pecuniary  consideration  on  account  of  which  the  favor 
could  be  granted,  and  on  account  of  which  the  other  conditions 
mentioned  could  have  any  place,  or  avail  anything  if  complied  with. 
Still,  they  are  all  necessary  conditions. 

I  pretend  not  that  this  example  can  answer  all  the  purposes 
aimed  at.  But  it  is  sufiicient  to  show  that  there  may  be  a  ground^ 
or  an  essential^  prominent  conditioyi,  which,  in  the  sense  in  Avhich 
it  is  a  condition,  excludes  all  other  conditions.  That  is,  nothing 
else  is  a  condition  in  the  same  sense  ivith  this.  It  is,  I  apprehend, 
in  this  way  that  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks  respecting  justification, 
the  drift  of  his  discourse  showing  clearly  the  meaning  of  his 
words.  His  object  is  to  set  forth  the  real  state  of  man  as  a 
transgressor,  and  the  way  opened  for  his  salvation  by  the  expiatory 
sacrifice  of  Christ.  Accordingly,  he  says,  our  salvation  is  not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done.  The  law  promised 
life  on  the  ground  of  our  unfailing  obedience.  But  we  are  exclu- 
ded from  the  benefit  of  this  promise  by  our  sins.  The  Apostle- 
then  describes  the  other  method  of  justification  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  or  by  his  righteousness,  or  his  grace.  Our  works  are 
excluded.  They  can  have  no  influence  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
mediation  of  Christ  has  influence.  Previously  to  our  faith  and 
justification,  we  have  no  good  works ;  and  if  we  had,  they  could 
not  be  the  ground  of  our  justification,  unless  they  were  perfect 
through  our  whole  life  ;  which  would  be  inconsistent  with  our 
being  sinners.  Our  justification  is  then  of  grace,  not  of  works  — 
not  for  our  righteousness,  but  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 


180  JUSTIFICATION. 

Wc  have  no  good  works  before  we  are  brought  into  a  spiritual 
union  with  Chi'ist.  And  the  works  which  we  do  after  that  union 
cannot  be  the  ground  of  our  justification,  because,  though  in  a 
measure  right,  and  so  far  as  right,  acceptable  to  God,  thej  are 
not  perfectly  rigid,  and  do  not  now  and  never  can,  constitute  the 
obedience  which  the  law  of  works  demands.  The  way  of  life 
then  by  works  is  forever  closed  up.  And  we  see  with  what  good 
reason  the  Apostle  says  absolutely,  our  justification  is  not  of 
works.  However  necessary  they  may  be,  and  whatever  their  im- 
portance in  other  respects,  they  have  no  place  here.  We  are  saved 
by  the  atoning  blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  —  by  grace 
alone  —  or,  which  we  shall  find  to  be  the  same  thing,  by  faith 
alone. 

It  should  be  fixed  in  our  minds  as  a  point  of  great  importance, 
that  nothing  else  has  any  such  influence  in  our  justification,  as  the 
death,  the  atonement,  or  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  that  his 
work  as  Redeemer  does,  alone,  form  the  perfect,  meritorious  con- 
dition, or  ground  of  our  justification  before  God,  nothing  else 
being  needed  or  admitted  as  a  condition,  or  any  part  of  a  condi- 
tion, in  that  respect.  This,  I  think,  is  the  very  thing  which  the 
Apostle  had  in  his  mind,  when  he  so  decidedly  excluded  works 
from  having  any  share  in  our  justification.  And  it  is  certain  that 
he  did  this  very  properly,  with  his  particular  view  and  for  his  spe- 
cific purpose,  although  in  other  views  of  the  subject  and  for  other 
purposes,  several  other  things  are  indispensable  as  conditions  of 
forgiveness  and  salvation.  Those  other  things,  I  say,  are  really 
indispensable  ;  and  the  sacred  writers  would  have  omitted  an  im- 
portant truth,  if  they  had  not  declared  this.  But  no  other  truth 
interferes  with  that  foundation  principle  of  Paul,  that  we  are  jus- 
tified freely  by  grace  through  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  not 
at  all  by  our  works.  From  Paul's  point  of  view,  it  was  obviously 
so.  In  his  circumstances,  and  for  the  accomplishment  of  his 
great  object,  truth  required  him  to  speak  as  he  did.  He  was 
called  to  establish  the  doctrine,  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the 
gospel  scheme,  in  opposition  to  the  errors  of  those  who  went  about 
to  establish  a  justifying  righteousness  of  their  own.     But  when 


JUSTIFICATION.  181 

circumstances  led  him  to  look  at  Christianity  from  a  different  point 
of  view,  and  to  confute  errors  of  a  diflferent  kind,  he  was  equally 
prompt  and  earnest  in  asserting  other  truths.  For  he  never  en- 
tertained the  preposterous  idea,  that  any  single  truth,  however 
important,  constitutes  Christianity. 

In  the  treatment  of  this  subject  my  aim  is  to  conform  exactly 
to  the  word  of  God,  teaching  the  doctrines  Avhich  the  inspired 
writers  teach,  and  as  they  teach  them.  When  I  undertake  to 
show  what  is  the  meritorious  condition  or  procuring  cause  of  our 
justification,  I  follow  Paul,  and  looking  at  the  subject  from  his 
point  of  view,  I  assert  what  he  asserted,  that  we  are  pardoned 
and  accepted  not  for  our  righteousness,  but  on  account  of  the 
perfect  righteousness  of  Christ  —  on  this  account  ivholly,  our 
works  being  excluded.  This  is  the  great  gospel  truth  which  Paul 
was  inspired  to  teach,  and  which,  in  various  parts  of  his  writings, 
he  did  very  plainly  teach,  though  without  displacing  or  marring 
any  other  truth.  But  at  other  times  he  as  plainly  taught  different 
truths,  knowing  that,  whatever  ignorant  or  hasty  readers  might 
imagine,  there  was  no  contradiction.  In  this  we  should  copy  his 
example.  There  is  no  other  way  of  doing  justice  to  the  sacred 
writers.  We  must  endeavor  to  place  ourselves  in  their  circum- 
stances, and  to  get  the  views  which  they  had  in  their  minds,  and 
which  they  uttered  so  freely  and  so  artlessly,  and  which  they  al- 
ways seemed  to  expect  that  their  readers  would  candidly  consider 
and  rightly  understand.  Following  them  in  their  manner  of 
teaching,  we  say  of  a  particular  doctrine,  as  the  doctrine  of  gra- 
tuitous justification,  it  is  the  truth,  and  in  the  point  of  view  in- 
tended, the  only  truth,  everything  else  being  excluded.  By  and 
by,  when  there  is  occasion  for  it,  we  teach  something  else  with  the 
same  freedom,  something  which  we  know  to  be  a  truth,  but  which 
•would  contradict  the  truths  before  taught,  if  held  forth  from  the 
same  stand-point  and  in  the  same  connection  ;  although,  being 
held  forth  from  a  different  stand-point,  and  in  a  different  connec- 
tion, it  perfectly  harmonizes  with  every  other  truth.  Thus  we 
say  that  we  are  not  forgiven  and  saved  for  our  works  —  that 
works  are  excluded.     And  then  in  another  view,  we  say,  that 

VOL.  III.  16 


182  JUSTIFICATION. 

works  of  obedience  are  absolutely  necessary  —  that  we  cannot  be 
pardoned  and  saved  without  them,  any  more  than  we  can  without 
the  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ.  But  we  shall  say  more  on  this 
point  in  the  sequel. 

Have  we  not  now  arrived  at  a  satisfactory  idea  of  what  it  is  to 
be  justified  freely  hj  the  grace  of  God,  as  we  are  said  to  be, 
Rom.  3:  24  ?  Justification  is  hei-e  put  in  opposition  to  justifica- 
tion by  works.  God  does  not  justify  us  for  having  complied  with 
the  holy  requirements  of  the  law,  for  this  we  have  not  done.  He 
does  not  justify  us  on  account  of  a  personal  worthiness,  for  this 
we  do  not  possess.  But  he  justifies  us  freely,  by  his  grace.  It 
is  an  unmerited  gift.  It  comes  from  his  sovereign  love.  The 
gift  of  a  Saviour  —  the  provision  of  an  expiatory  sacrifice  —  all 
that  was  done  preparatory  to  salvation,  resulted  from  the  infinite 
benignity  and  grace  of  God.  He  adopted  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion, because  he  "  so  loved  the  world."  And  he  carries  out  the 
work  of  redemption  in  our  renewal,  our  forgiveness,  and  accep- 
tance, from  the  same  benevolent  motives.  Our  justification  is  the 
result  of  a  previous  work  of  grace,  and  it  is  itself  a  work  of  grace. 
We  do  nothing  to  deserve  it.  This  unspeakable  good  is  bestowed 
upon  us  "  without  money  and  without  price."  From  first  to  last, 
salvation  is  all  of  grace. 

But  some  may  ask  —  how  is  it  a  free  gift,  a  blessing  gratui- 
tously  bestowed,  if  Christ  paid  the  full  price  of  our  redemption, 
and  purchased  our  life  by  his  own  painful  death  ? 

I  answer,  first ;  salvation  is  a  free  gift  to  us,  inasmuch  as  we 
have  done  nothing  to  purchase  it.  The  price  of  our  redemption 
was  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  No  atonement  for  sin 
has  been  made,  and  none  could  be  made,  by  us.  On  our  part,  all 
is  depravity  and  guilt.  On  his  part,  all  is  love  and  mercy.  So 
that  the  good  which  we  receive,  in  whatever  way  procured,  is  to 
us  an  unmerited  favor.     It  is  all  of  grace. 

I  answer,  secondly  ;  the  Apostle  taught,  Rom.  3:  24,  that  we 
are  justified  freely  by  God's  grace,  and  yet  that  it  is  through  the 
redemption  which   is  in  Christ  Jesus.      He  taught  both  these 


JUSTIFICATION.  183 

truths  here  in  the  same  sentence ;  and  at  other  times  he  taught 
them  in  different  passages.  And  it  is  clear  that,  as  they  lay  in 
his  mind,  they  were  perfectly  consistent.  So  that  he  readily 
assorted  one  or  the  other  of  them,  or  both  together,  just  as  he  had 
occasion  to  do.  If,  then,  we  have  any  confidence  in  his  divine 
inspiration,  or  even  in  his  logical  discernment,  we  must  beUeve 
both  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace,  and  the  doctrine  of 
redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  must  plainly  declare  them 
both,  whether  we  can  by  our  own  reason  z-econcile  them  with  each 
other  or  not. 

I  answer,  thirdly  ;  if  you  find  it  difficult  to  make  out  the  con- 
sistency of  the  two  doctrines,  can  you  show  them  to  be  incon- 
sistent ?  May  it  not  be  true  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  and 
still  that  salvation  is  of  grace  ?  Pecuniary  transactions  are 
referred  to  in  Scripture  to  illustrate  the  atonement.  We  are 
hought  with  a  price.  We  are  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 
But  the  language  is  figurative.  Pecuniary  or  commercial  trans- 
actions are  used  to  represent  what  is  moral  and  spiritual.  Keep 
this  in  mind,  and  the  difficulty  will  vanish.  For  in  truth,  what  is 
there  in  God's  giving  his  Son  to  die  for  us,  incompatible  with  our 
being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  ?  The  work  of  Christ  did  not 
take  away  the  ill  desert  of  sin  or  of  sinners,  but  manifested  it 
more  clearly.  It  did  not  make  us  personallij  worthy  of  God's 
favor,  but  showed  our  unworthiness.  The  curse  of  the  law  was 
indeed  substantially  borne,  and  justice  satisfied,  by  the  Saviour. 
But  that  redounds  to  Ms  merit,  not  to  oitrs.  We  receive  infinite 
good  from  the  work  which  Christ  performed  for  us  ;  but  of  all 
that  good  we  are  personally  unworthy.  This  is  all  made  clear  by 
the  consciousness  of  Christians.  They  are  saved  through  the 
atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  and  yet  they  know  and  feel  that  their 
salvation  is  wholly  of  grace. 

But  fourthly,  I  must  say  one  thing  more  ;  namely,  that  God's 
grace,  in  our  forgiveness  and  salvation,  is  made  to  appear  most 
conspicuous  and  glorious  hy  means  of  that  very  atonement  of 
Christ  which  is  said  to  be  incompatible  ivith  it.  This  is  plainly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures.     The  Apostle,  Romans  v,  particularly 


184  JUSTIFICATION. 

sets  forth  the  method  of  our  justification  through  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  celebrates  it  as  a  work  of  grace.  "  Where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound  ;  that  as  sin  reigned  unto 
death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteousness  "  —  (not 
our  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  verse  18)  — 
^'  unto  eternal  life,"  The  free  grace  of  God  in  our  salvation 
shines  with  overpowering  splendor  in  the  work  of  redemption  by 
Christ.  "  Herein  is  love,"  said  one  who  had  been  taught  by 
truth  itself —  "  herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he 
loved  us,  and  gave  his  Son  to  die  for  us."  In  this  mission  of 
Christ,  divine  grace  came  forth  to  the  view  of  heaven  and  earth 
in  its  highest  glory.  And  our  actual  forgiveness  and  salvation  is 
but  the  result  of  the  love  and  grace  manifested  in  the  gift  of 
Christ,  and  in  his  humiliation  and  death.  How  strange  then  it  is, 
yea,  what^ violent  perversion  of  the  truth,  to  represent  that  which 
most  illustriously  displays  the  grace  of  God,  to  be  inconsistent 
with  it !  It  is  known  to  believers  in  this  life,  and  will  be  known 
more  fully  in  eternity,  that  God's  justifying  and  saving  them 
through  the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ,  is  "  to  the  praise  of  the 
_glory  of  his  grace." 

If  I  mistake  not,  we  have  satisfactorily  reached  the  following 
conclusions  ;  namely,  the  love  or  grace  of  God  is  the  original 
cause  or  spring  of  our  salvation.  In  the  exercise  of  that  love  he 
sent  his  Son  to  be  our  Redeemer.  The  obedience  and  death  of 
Christ  opened  the  door  for  the  exercise  of  mercy  towards  us,  and 
procured  salvation  for  sinners.  His  finished  righteousness,  or  the 
merit  of  his  obedience  unto  death,  is  the  proper  ground,  and  the 
•only  meritorious  ground,  of  our  justification  ;  and  that  justificBr 
tion,  like  the  mission  and  death  of  Christ  from  which  it  resulted, 
is  entirely  a  work  of  grace. 

But  there  is,  as  we  have  seen,  another  view  to  be  taken  of  the 
*5ubject.  The  expiatory  sacrifice,  the  all  sufficient  atonement  of 
Christ  is  not  all  that  is  necessary  to  our  forgiveness.  Something 
is  required  on  our  part.  There  are  conditions  with  which  we 
must  comply,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  good  procured  for  us.  These 
several  conditions  are  set  before  us  in  the  word  of  God.     We  are 


JUSTIFICATION.  185 

required  to  repent  aud  he  converted,  that  we  may  be  forgiven, 
Luke  13:  3  ;  Acts  2:  38  ;  3:  19  ;  Ezek.  18:  30  ;  Isa.  55:  7. 
These  passages,  and  others  which  might  be  cited,  are  exceedingly 
plain.  Faith  is  also  laid  down  as  a  condition  of  justification  and 
eternal  life.  We  must  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  we  may  be 
saved.  We  are  justified  by  faith.  The  same  as  to  prayer. 
"  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
saved."  A  spirit  o^  forgiveness  is  declai'ed  to  be  a  condition  of 
our  being  forgiven  of  God.  "  If  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses, 
your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you.  But  if  ye  forgive 
not,  neither  shall  ye  be  forgiven."  The  same  is  true  of  obedience. 
"  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father." 
"  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  have 
right  to  the  tree  of  fife."  I  might  mention  other  exercises  of 
piety,  which  are  set  forth  in  Scripture  as  conditions  of  our  forgive- 
ness and  eternal  life  ;  as  means  which  are  indispensable  on  our 
part,  if  we  would  be  partakers  of  salvation. 

But  when  we  take  a  careful  and  connected  view  of  the  teach- 
ings of  holy  writ  on  this  subject,  we  become  satisfied  that  none  of 
the  things  above  mentioned  are  conditions  of  forgiveness  and 
eternal  life,  in  the  same  sense  with  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
That  was  a  condition  on  God's  part  —  a  measure  which  was 
necessary  to  prepare  the  way  for  our  salvation  —  a  measure 
required,  in  order  that  God  might  be  just  Avhile  he  justifies  them 
that  believe.  But  the  other  conditions  mentioned  are  necessary 
on  our  part.  Christ  has  opened  the  door  of  heaven  ;  but  we 
must  enter  in,  or  we  cannot  enjoy  heaven.  He  has  procured  and 
offered  an  infinite  good.  But  how  can  it  avail  to  our  benefit,  un- 
less we  receive  it  ?  "  Without  holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord." 
Now  these  duties,  which  are  required  of  us  as  conditions  of  salva- 
tion, are  in  no  degree  less  necessary  because  Christ  has  performed 
the  antecedent  and  meritorious  condition  for  us.  His  atonement, 
his  righteousness,  which  is  presupposed,  instead  of  superseding 
our  agency  in  repenting  and  believing,  is  the  very  thing  which 
secures  that  agency,  and  renders  it  effectual  to  our  salvation. 
16» 


186  JUSTIFICATION. 

If  jou  still  inquire  more  particularly  whj  repentance,  faith, 
and  holiness  are  to  be  regarded  as  indispensable  conditions  of  our 
salvation,  mj  answer  is  two-fold. 

First.  God  himself  has  appointed  them,  and  required  them  as 
conditions  of  salvation.  And  we  know  that  all  his  appointments 
and  requisitions  are  holy,  just  and  good. 

Secondly.  The  nature  of  the  case  shows  that  these  conditions 
are  necessary.  Salvation  is  holy,  and  cannot  belong  to  the 
unholy  ;  as  the  Scripture  says,  "  Without  holiness  no  man  can 
see  the  Lord."  God  is  a  Being  of  infinite  purity  ;  and  we  must 
be  pure  in  heart  in  order  to  enjoy  him.  Our  Saviour  sustains 
various  oflBces.  He  is  a  Prophet ;  but  he  becomes  a  Prophet  to 
us,  only  when  our  hearts  are  opened  to  receive  his  instructions. 
He  is  a  Priest ;  and  he  becomes  a  Priest  to  us  by  our  trusting  in 
his  all-sufficient  sacrifice.  He  is  a  King  ;  and  he  becomes  our 
King  by  our  submitting  heartily  to  his  dominion  and  obeying  his 
laws.  He  is  proffered  to  us  as  an  unspeakable  gift ;  but  how  can 
a  gift  be  ours  unless  we  receive  it  ?  The  conditions,  then,  which 
are  required  of  us  by  the  authority  of  God,  are,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  obviously  necessary  to  our  salvation. 

But  we  here  meet  another  question,  and  one  attended  with 
more  serious  difficulties.  Repentance,  faith,  prayer,  and  obe- 
dience are,  we  have  seen,  all  necessary,  though  not  meritorious 
conditions  of  our  justification.  But  the  Scriptures  evidently  dis- 
tinguish one  of  these  conditions  above  the  others.  They  are  all 
equally  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  but  faith  is  particularized  as  having 
a  concern  in  our  justification,  which  belongs  not  to  any  of  the 
other  conditions.  What  is  the  reason  of  this  ?  How  is  it  to  be 
accounted  for,  that  faith  is  spoken  of  in  the  word  of  God  as  hav- 
ing this  peculiar  influence  in  the  affair  of  our  justification  ? 

Now  if  we  should  be  utterly  unable  to  show  ivhy  faith  is  thus 
distinguished  from  other  virtues,  in  regard  to  our  justification,  the 
fact,  that  it  is  thus  distinguished  by  the  inspired  writers,  is  sufli- 
cient  to  settle  our  belief.  It  is  certain  that  the  Scriptures  do,  in 
various  places,  attribute  to  faith  this  pecuhar,  this  prominent  influ- 
ence.    The  Old  Testament  declares,  that  Abraham  believed  God, 


JUST-IFICATION.  187 

and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  But  where  does  it 
declare  that  Abraham,  or  any  other  man,  repented,  or  prayed,  or 
did  any  other  duty,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness  ? 
Paul  says  repeatedly  that  we  are  justified  by  faith.  But  where 
does  he  say  we  are  justified  by  any  other  virtuous  exercise  ?  He 
declares,  indeed,  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified. 
But  he  does  not  say  they  shall  be  justified  for  doing  the  law,  or 
hy  doing  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  often  declares  that  justification 
is  not  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  but  that  it  is  by  faith,  that  it  may 
be  of  grace.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  great  Apostle.  Now 
if  we  should  find  that,  after  our  best  endeavors,  we  can  obtain  no 
clear  insight  into  the  rationale  of  the  doctrine  ;  still,  its  being 
taught  by  inspired  writers  is  a  sufficient  foundation  for  our  belief. 
We  must  have  implicit  confidence  in  their  instructions,  expecting 
further  fight  in  time  to  come. 

But,  without  pretending  to  an  adequate  understanding  of  the 
subject  now  under  discussion,  I  cannot  but  think  that  several 
things  relative  to  it  are  sufficiently  evident. 

It  is  evident,  that  the  difference  between  faith  and  the  other 
Christian  virtues,  in  regard  to  justification,  does  not  arise  from 
any  real  difference  among  them  as  to  their  moral  nature.  It 
might,  at  first  view,  be  natural  enough  to  suppose,  that  faith  is 
thus  distinguished  above  all  other  things  required  of  us,  because 
of  some  superior  excellence  which  is  inherent  in  it.  But  this 
cannot  be  the  case.  For  what  can  be  more  excellent  than  love^ 
which  is  the  fulfilHng  of  the  law,  and  which  Paul  places  above 
both  faith  and  hope  ?  And  most  certainly  it  cannot  be,  as  some 
have  strangely  supposed,  that  God  has  assigned  to  faith  such  a 
peculiar  influence  in  our  justification,  because  it  is  destitute  of 
moral  excellence.  We  are  taught  by  our  Saviour,  that  faith  is 
the  great  work  which  is  required  of  us  by  God.  "  What  shall  we 
do,"  said  some,  "  that  we  may  work  the  work  of  God  ?  Jesus 
answered,  "  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him 
whom  he  hath  sent."  Why  is  not  this  special  work  of  God,  this 
obedience  to  the  great  requirement  of  the  gospel,  an  act  of  holi- 
ness, as  much  as  obedience  to  any  divine  requirement  ?     If  it  is 


188  JUSTIFICATION. 

not  an  act  of  holiness,  it  would  be  passing  strange  that  God  should 
bestow  such  special  honor  upon  it.  My  argument  on  the  subject 
is,  you  see,  very  plain  and  very  concise.  If  it  were  the  holiness 
of  faith  which  gives  it  such  influence  in  our  justification,  then 
"why  does  not  the  hohness  of  love,  and  other  acts  of  obedience, 
give  them  the  same  influence  ?  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  exceed- 
ingly absurd  to  suppose  that  God  gives  such  special  influence  to 
faith  because  it  does  not  partake  of  the  nature  of  holiness.  Our 
conclusion  is,  that  the  word  of  God  does  not  ascribe  such  a  pecu- 
liar influence  to  faith,  either  because  it  is  in  itself  possessed  of 
moral  excellence,  or  because  it  is  not ;  hut  for  some  other  reason. 
What  is  that  reason  ?  And  how  does  it  come  to  pass,  that,  to  he 
justified  hy  grace,  we  must  he  justified  hy  faith  ?  I  hope  by  the 
following  suggestions  to  contribute  something  towards  a  satisfac- 
tory solution  of  this  inquiry. 

There  are,  we  have  seen,  only  two  ways  of  justification  spoken 
of  in  Scripture  ;  two  ways  in  which  we  can  obtain  the  favor  of 
God ;  one,  by  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  ;  the  other,  by  the 
free  mercy  of  God  through  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
From  the  first  of  these  ways  we  are  evidently  excluded.  We 
must,  then,  resort  to  the  other.  And  as  that  is  made  known  to 
us  by  the  gospel  revelation,  it  calls  for  our  consideration  and  our 
faith.  What  -we  have  to  do  as  sinners  is,  to  imderstand  and 
receive  the  gospel.  And  as  the  gospel  proclaims  salvation  hy 
grace,  to  receive  it  is,  in  reality,  to  receive  salvation  by  grace. 
And  this  is  the  same  as  to  exercise  evangelical  faith.  Cordially 
to  believe  the  gospel,  is  to  understand  and  embrace  what  it  de- 
clares. And  as  it  declares  that  Christ  is  the  only  Saviour,  in  the 
exercise  of  faith  we  receive  him  and  trust  in  him  as  such,  giving 
up  all  thought  of  being  saved  in  any  other  way.  It  appears, 
then,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  gospel,  that  to  be  saved  by 
faith  is  to  be  saved  by  grace ;  for  faith  is  receiving  salvation  by 
grace.  If  the  gospel  revealed  another  way  of  salvation,  beUeving 
the  gospel  would  be  another  thing,  and  being  saved  by  faith  would 
be  another  thing.  Faith  derives  its  character,  it  becomes  what  it 
is,  from  the  real  nature  of  the  gospel  scheme  which  it  receives. 


JUSTIFICATION.  IftD 

And  salvation  bj  faith  becomes  what  it  is,  that  is,  a  gratuitous, 
free  salvation,  because  this  is  the  salvation  which  is  offered  in  the 
gospel,  and  which  faith  receives.  A  faith  which  looked  any  other 
way,  and  reached  after  any  other  salvation,  would  not  be  gospel 
faith.  If  you  have  true  faith,  you  think  and  feel  in  correspond- 
ence with  gospel-truth.  You  trust  in  Christ  as  he  is  set  forth  in 
the  gospel ;  and  he  is  set  forth  as  a  complete  Saviour  and  the  only 
Saviour ;  and  you  receive  pardon  and  life  as  it  is  offered,  and  it  is 
offered  as  a  free  gift.  Accordingly,  to  receive  justification  by  faith 
is  to  receive  it  as  a  matter  oi  grace,  21,  free  gift,  inasmuch  as  this  is 
the  only  justification  which  is  made  knoAvn  in  the  gospel,  and  the 
only  justification  which  faith  can  receive.  It  appears  then  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  gospel  and  from  the  corresponding  nature  of 
faith,  that  to  he  justified  hy  faith  is,  as  the  Apostle  teaches,  to  be 
justified  hy  grace.  Faith  is  not  true  faith,  unless  it  thus  falls  in 
and  harmonizes  with  the  gospel  scheme. 

If  now  you  ask  why  we  are  justified  hj  faith,  I  answer,  because 
there  is  no  possible  way  for  sinners  to  be  justified  but  hy  grace, 
and  there  is  no  other  way  to  be  justified  hy  grace,  but  to  be  justi- 
fied hy  faith.  To  suppose  that  you  can  be  pardoned  and  saved 
by  grace,  in  any  way  but  to  be  pardoned  and  saved  by  faith,  is  as 
absurd  as  to  suppose  that  you  can  have  salvation  without  receiv- 
ing it  —  or  that  you  can  have  it  without  having  it.  For  it  is 
clear,  that  you  cannot  become  possessed  of  a  good,  of  which  you 
are  destitute,  without  receiving  it.  So  long  as  you  refuse  a 
blessing,  the  blessing  is  not  yours.  In  this  way  you  may  be  satis- 
fied why  God  makes /atYA  the  special  means  of  securing  salva- 
tion. If  a  man  is  an  unbeUever,  salvation  cannot  be  his,  un- 
less he  c^in  possess  it  while  he  rejects  it. 

Look  at  a  man  justly  condemned  for  a  crime  which  he  has  com- 
mitted, to  suffer  perpetual  imprisonment.  It  is  clear  that  he  can- 
not obtain  deliverance  from  this  punishment  by  proving  his  inno- 
cence, or  by  any  service  he  can  perform.  But  suppose  the  chief 
magistrate  sends  a  messenger  to  him  with  the  offer  of  a  free  par- 
don and  immediate  liberation  from  his  confinement.  Now  if  no 
condition  is   expressed,  one  is  implied.      For  the  prisoner  will 


190  JUSTIFICATION. 

remain  in  his  cell,  unless  he  gives  credit  to  the  report  of  the 
messenger  and  is  willing  to  accept  the  offer  of  liberation  which 
he  brings.  Suppose  he  does  this.  I  ask,  how  was  this  prisoner 
liberated  ?  And  the  answer  may  be  given  in  two  ways.  First, 
it  may  be  said  he  was  pardoned  and  liberated  by  an  act  of  mercy 
in  the  magistrate.  Secondly,  it  may  be  said,  he  was  liberated 
merely  by  crediting  the  message  sent  him  and  accepting  the  prof- 
fered deliverance,  this  being  all  that  was  necessaiy  on  his  part. 
And  these  answers  are  both  true,  and  both  amount  to  the  same 
thing.     Each  implies  the  other. 

But  let  the  case  be  varied.  Suppose  the  prisoner  confined  for 
a  heavy  debt  he  has  contracted  by  wasting  the  property  of  his 
employer.  And  suppose  his  employer,  to  whom  he  owes  so  much, 
Bends  a  messenger  with  an  offer  to  liberate  him  a  year  hence, 
on  condition  of  his  doing  work  enough  to  pay  a  part  of  the 
debt,  and  giving  bonds  for  the  final  payment  of  the  rest.  The 
prisoner  beUeves  the  sincerity  of  his  creditor,  accepts  liis  offer, 
fulfils  the  conditions,  and  is  liberated.  Now  this  man  obtains  his 
liberation  not  by  an  act  of  compassion  or  generosity,  not  as  a  gratui- 
ty, but  by  such  services  and  additional  sureties,  as  satisfy  the 
claims  of  his  creditor. 

Apply  this  to  our  subject.  Had  the  gospel  message  required 
services  or  sufferings  of  us  sufficient  to  discharge  our  obligations 
to  divine  justice,  as  the  condition  of  being  restored  to  divine  favor, 
and  were  we  able  to  fulful  the  condition ;  our  believing  and  ac- 
cepting such  a  message  would  be  a  very  different  thing  from 
gospel  faith  —  as  different  as  such  a  message  is  from  the  gospel 
message  ;  and  our  salvation  coming  in  this  way  would  be  a  very 
different  thing  from  gospel  salvation.  It  would  not  be  by  grace, 
but  by  our  own  services  or  sufferings. 

I  am  so  desirous  of  showing  as  clearly  as  possible  why  the 
Scripture  declares  that  we  are  justified  by  grace^  and  still  that  we 
are  justified  by  faith,  that  I  will  venture  to  give  one  more  illustra- 
tion ;  though  it  may  appear  like  attempting  to  make  that  which 
is  already  sufficiently  plain,  still  plainer. 

Take  then  the  case  of  a  man,  who  has  no  possible  way  to  pro- 


JUSTIFICATION.  191 

vide  for  himself  but  by  begging.  Of  such  a  man  we  say,  he  lives 
hy  begging.  He  supports  himself  by  asking  alms.  Now  what  is 
the  difiference  between  saying,  he  Uves  by  begging,  and  saying,  he 
lives  by  charity ;  or  between  saying,  he  is  supported  by  asking 
alms,  and  saying,  he  is  supported  by  the  alms  which  he  receives  ? 
So  with  believers.  They  have  no  resources  of  their  own,  and 
they  depend  wholly  on  the  favor  of  their  Redeemer.  They  are 
justified  and  saved  by  his  grace,  and  they  are  justified  and  saved 
by  trusting  in  his  grace. 


LECTURE     CII. 


NATURE   OF  JUSTIFYING  FAITH.      IMPUTATION. 

I  HAVE  repeatedly  spoken  of  the  nature  of  faith.  But  the 
subject  deserves  a  more  particular  and  distinct  consideration. 

What  then  is  that  faith  in  Christ,  or  in  the  gospel,  which  is  the 
means  of  justification  ;  or  which  secures  forgiveness  of  sin  and 
acceptance  with  God  ? 

Here  the  natural  presumption  is,  that  an  act  or  exercise  which 
God  so  particularly  requires  of  us,  and  which  he  has  made  the 
special  means  or  condition  of  justification,  must  be  a  holy  exer- 
cise—  an  exercise  possessing  true  moral  excellence.  Otherwise, 
Vfhj  should  he  so  particularly  require  it  ?  And  why  should  he 
put  such  a  mark  of  favor  upon  it,  as  to  promise  salvation  to  those 
who  exercise  it  ? 

Again.  Justifying  faith  has  a  particular  respect  to  Christ  in 
his  true  character.  It  receives  him  and  rehes  upon  him  as  a  holy 
Saviour,  —  which  plainly  implies  a  love  to  holiness.  Faith  re- 
ceives Christ  as  a  friend  and  vindicator  of  the  divine  law,  and  so 
implies  a  love  to  that  law.  The  end  of  faith,  the  good  which  it 
aims  at,  is  a  holy  salvation  —  a  deliverance  not  only  from  the 
penal  consequences  of  sin,  but  from  its  polluting  influence  Avithin 
the  mind.  Desire  for  such  a  salvation  is  a  holy  desire  —  an  at- 
tachment to  a  holy  object. 

Consider  too  the  influence  of  faith  in  Christ  —  the  effects  which 
it  produces.  It  purifies  the  heart.  It  overcomes  the  world.  It 
produces  good  works.    It  leads  to  progressive  sanctification.    Now 


JUSTIFICATION.  193 

it. cannot  ^e,  that  an  exercise  or  state  of  raind  -which  is  productive 
of  such  excellent  fruits,  is  itself  destitute  of  excellence. 

The  Apostle  John  expressly  declares,  that  he  who  believes  is 
bor7i  of  God  ;  which  shows,  that  the  exercise  of  faith  is  a  certain 
evidence  of  regeneration,  true  faith  being  found  only  in  the  re- 
generate. And  James  teaches  that  a  faith  whicli  is  separate  from 
obedience  is  not  justifying  faith.  True  faith  works  by  love  ;  and 
love  involves  obedience.  Love  is  itself  obedience  to  the  first  and 
great  command,  and  leads  to  universal  obedience.  "  He  that 
loveth  me,  keepeth  my  commands." 

There  are  indeed  various  exercises  of  unconverted  men  which 
are  called  faith.  Those  who  are  without  holiness  may  believe  the 
mere  facts  of  the  gospel  history,  just  as  they  believe  the  facts  of 
any  other  history.  They  may  have  a  speculative  knowledge  of 
the  truths  which  the  Scriptures  reveal,  and  a  faith  corresponding 
with  that  knowledge.  Men  destitute  of  godliness  may  believe, 
that  Jesus  was  born,  and  wrought  miracles,  and  suffered  and  died 
for  sinners ;  that  he  will  forgive  the  offences  of  his  followers,  and 
make  them  happy  in  heaven.  These  and  other  truths  of  revela- 
tion are  speculatively  known  and  believed  by  multitudes  who  are 
strangers  to  holiness.  But  they  do  not  discern  these  things  spirit- 
willy.  They  do  not  see  their  true  nature,  their  importance,  their 
moral  beauty  and  excellence.  And  they  do  not  believe  them  oth- 
erwise than  as  they  see  and  understand  them.  Of  course,  thej 
do  not  beUeve  in  their  true  importance,  excellence  and  glory. 

In  saving  faith  the  act  of  the  mind  may  be  considered  as  com- 
plex.  The  mind  itself  is  complex  in  regard  to  its  faculties  and 
operations.  It  is  an  intellectual  or  knowing  agent,  and  it  is  a 
moral  agent.  The  power  of  the  mind  to  put  forth  acts  which  are 
of  different  kinds,  or  which  stand  in  different  relations,  has  given 
rise  to  the  division  of  the  mind  into  different  faculties.  The  most 
general  classification  of  these  faculties  is  into  the  intellectual  and 
■moral.  In  the  exercise  of  its  intellectual  faculty,  the  mind  looks 
at  things  of  a  merely  intellectual  nature,  as  the  principles  of 
mathematics ;  or  at  things  of  a  moral  nature  considered  in  a 
merely  intellectual  light.     Moral  and  spiritual  things  may  be  ob- 

VOL.  III.  17 


104  JUSTIFICATION. 

jects  both  of  intellectual  discernment  and  of  moral  affection ;  a»d 
the  mind  may  put  forth  an  act  which  ghall  relate  to  them  in  both 
respects.  The  act  may  be  one,  but  it  may  relate  to  the  objects 
in  different  points  of  view,  and  so  may  be  both  intellectual  and 
moral.  Here  the  complexness  of  the  act  is  to  be  resolved  into 
its  bearing  upon  the  same  object  in  different  respects,  —  in  other 
words,  upon  different  aspects  of  the  object.  The  mind  acts  intel- 
lectually —  it  apprehends  the  object ;  and  it  acts  morally,  that  is, 
it  is  pleased  with  the  object  —  it  loves  what  it  perceives.  And 
the  mind  may  be  in  such  a  state  that  it  loves  a  holy  object  as  soon 
as  it  sees  it  —  in  such  a  state  that  it  cannot  see  without  loving ; 
and  most  certainly  it  cannot  love  without  seeing.  In  the  language 
of  logicians,  the  perception  must  precede  the  affection,  not  in  the 
order  of  time,  but  in  the  order  of  nature.  To  love  that  of  which 
I  have  no  apprehension  would  be  to  love  that  which  to  me  has  no 
existence.  It  would  be  to  love  nothing.  The  apprehension  of  the 
object  is  the  ground,  that  is,  the  subjective  ground  of  the  love  ; 
while  the  objective  ground  is  the  contemplated  loveliness  of  the  ob- 
ject. But  because  the  apprehension  of  the  object  is  presupposed 
in  the  affection,  we  cannot  infer  that  it  is  a  distinct  and  separate 
act,  preceding  the  other  in  point  of  time.  There  may  be  no  time 
passing  after  I  apprehend  the  object,  before  I  love  it.  So  far  as 
my  consciousness  goes,  apprehending  and  loving  may  be  one  act — 
one  putting  forth  of  mental  power.  And  I  may  properly  denote 
that  act  by  saying,  that  I  see  the  object  to  be  excellent  and  love- 
ly, or  by  saying,  I  love  it.  It  is  clear,  that  no  one  can  have  a 
true  spiritual  discernment  of  the  moral  beauty  and  loveliness  of 
Christ  without  a  heart  to  love  him.  And  love  certainly  implies  a 
perception  of  loveliness. 

But  there  is  a  kind  of  knowledge  or  discernment,  often  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  which  does  not  imply  real  love  or  holiness, 
and  has  no  connection  with  it.  Judas  and  many  others,  who  knew 
the  person,  the  miracles,  and  the  instructions  of  Christ,  were  not 
his  friends.  They  were  blind  to  the  moral  beauty  of  his  charac- 
ter and  his  gospel.  Spiritual  things  they  knew  not,  and  could  not 
know,  while  in  their  natural  state.     The  same  occurs  at  the  pres- 


JUSTIFICATION.  195 

ent  day.  Many  persons  speculatively  know  and  believe  the  facts 
of  the  gospel  history,  the  truth  of  its  doctrines  and  the  reasona- 
bleness of  its  precepts,  who  have  no  spiritual  discernment  and  no 
saving  faith.  They  have  knowledge  and  faith  ;  but  they  do  not 
apprehend  and  believe  the  gospel  spiritually.  The  devils  believe 
and  know  that  there  is  a  God  ;  but  they  see  not  his  moral  beauty 
and  glory.  In  like  manner  unregenerate  men  may  have  a  very 
correct  understanding  of  the  gospel,  considered  in  a  speculative 
point  of  view.  But  they  do  not  see  its  importance,  its  beauty  and 
excellence.  In  their  view  Christ  has  no  form  or  comeliness  ;  and 
when  they  see  him,  there  is  no  beauty  that  they  should  desire 
him.  He  is  truly  possessed  of  infinite  beauty  and  glory.  But 
this  is  what  the  unholy  do  not  discern,  and  of  course  do  not  love. 
Their  knowledge  is  merely  speculative,  and  implies  no  love.  But 
it  is  not  so  with  those  who  are  sanctified.  Their  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  Christ  involves  in  its  very  nature  aflfection  to  its  ob- 
jects. 

I  have  made  these  remarks  with  a  direct  view  to  the  subject 
before  us.  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  highly  important  to  consider 
justifying,  saving  faith  as  a  spiritual,  holy  exercise,  —  an  exercise 
which  involves  love  in  its  very  nature  ;  so  that,  as  "  he  that  know- 
eth  God  loveth  God,"  it  may  with  equal  truth  be  said,  he  that 
believeth,  loveth.  Justifying  faith  is  both  intellectual  and  moral  — 
a  combined  act  of  the  understanding  and  the  heart. 

I  well  know  that  some  writers  have  taken  a  very  different  posi- 
tion, and  have  labored  to  prove  that  justifying  faith  is  merely  an 
intellectual  act,  an  exercise  of  the  understanding  distinct  and  sep- 
arate from  all  moral  affection,  —  of  course  destitute  of  holiness. 
The  particular  reason  which  seems  to  have  operated  in  their  minds 
in  favor  of  this  position,  is,  that  it  makes  justification  altogether  a 
matter  of  grace.  In  their  reasoning  it  is  assumed,  that  if  faith 
were  a  holy  act,  the  believer  must  be  justified  on  account  of  the 
hohness  of  faith,  and  so  after  all,  that  justification  would  be  a 
matter  of  personal  merit,  and  not  of  free  grace,  and  that  no  dis- 
tinction would  remain  between  justification  by  faith,  and  justifica- 
tion by  works  of  obedience,  inasmuch  as  the  holiness  of  faith  is 
obedience. 


196  JUSTIFICATION. 

But  this  is  certainly  a  groundless  assumption.  For  faith  may 
be  a  holy  act,  and  yet  the  holiness  of  faith  may  not  be  the  ground 
or  procuring  cause  of  the  behever's  justification.  It  is  unques- 
tionably true  that  repentance  and  love,  which  are  required  as  con- 
ditions of  salvation,  are  holy  acts ;  but  does  it  thence  follow  that 
the  Christian  is  saved  on  the  ground  of  his  repentance  and  love  ? 
Paul,  Peter  and  John  performed  many  acts  of  holy  obedience. 
But  did  they  procure  the  blessings  of  forgiveness  and  the  divme 
favor  by  their  obedience  ?  Did  their  salvation  cease  to  be  of 
grace,  because  they  had  done  good  works  ?  Instead  of  this,  did 
they  not  feel  their  dependence  for  all  spiritual  blessings  on  the  grace 
of  Christ  more  and  more  strongly,  as  they  advanced  in  sanctifica- 
tion  ?  And  when  the  saints  attain  to  perfect  holiness  and  dwell 
in  the  world  above,  will  they  not  see  and  acknowledge  more  than 
ever  before,  that  their  salvation  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  ia 
to  be  ascribed,  not  to  their  own  holiness,  but  to  the  free  grace  of 
God  through  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  Their  hohness  is  itself  an  es- 
sential part  of  their  salvation.  And  it  belongs  to  the  very  nature 
of  holiness  in  redeemed  sinners,  to  abandon  all  ideas  of  justifica- 
tion and  eternal  life  on  account  of  their  own  worthiness,  and  to 
regard  the  work  of  Christ  as  the  meritorious  cause  of  all  the  good 
they  receive.  This,  I  say,  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  holiness. 
So  that  wherever  holiness  exists  and  is  active  in  those  who  have 
sinned,  there  all  thought  of  self-righteousness,  or  justification  by 
works,  will  be  renounced,  and  salvation  be  considered  as  wholly 
gratuitous.  Here  then  our  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification 
rests  on  a  sure  basis.  Only  let  sinners  be  sanctified  —  let  them 
be  illuminated  by  the  divine  Spirit,  and  repent,  and  exercise  a  holy 
faith  in  Christ,  and  they  will  be  sure  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  Paul, 
that  justification  is  not  by  works,  but  by  grace ;  they  will  adopt 
and  hold  fast  this  essential  doctrine,  which  is  taught  so  clearly  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  so  fully  confirmed  by  the  ever-growing  con- 
victions of  their  own  sanctified  hearts. 

There  is  a  class  of  writers  who  represent  justification  and  sanc- 
tification  to  be  identical.     When  it  is  said,  that  "  by  the  obedience 


JUSTIFICATION.  197 

of  one,  many  were  made  righteous,"  they  understand  the  mean- 
ing to  be,  that  many  were  made  inwardly  righteous^  or  holy.  But 
it  is  evident  that,  when  the  Apostle  speaks  of  our  being  made 
righteous  bj^  the  obedience  of  Christ,  and  of  our  being  justified 
through  his  death,  he  puts  our  being  justified  or  made  righteom 
in  opposition  to  our  being  condemned,  or  held  to  suffer  punishment. 
Accordingly,  the  essential  thing  intended  by  our  justification  is,  our 
hdng  forgiven,  or  exempted  from  punishment.  When  God  justi- 
fies the  ungodly,  he  frees  them  from  suffering  the  penalty  of  the 
law  ;  that  is,  he  treats  them  as  though  they  were  personally  just 
or  holy.  When  he  sanctifies  them,  he  makes  them  just  or  holy. 
The  prominent  thing  in  one  case  relates  to  their  condition  as  ex- 
posed to  punishment  for  sin  ;  in  the  other  case,  it  relates  to  their 
character  as  sinful.  The  one  may  be  called  a  measure  of  divine 
government,  or  an  act  of  God  as  Lawgiver  and  Judge  ;  the  other 
as  a  work  of  God's  Spirit  in  the  heart.  Although  they  always  go 
together,  so  that  every  one  who  is  justified  is  sanctified,  and  every 
one  who  is  sanctified  is  justified,  still  they  are  in  their  nature  dis- 
tinct, and  they  are  so  represented  in  Scripture.  Believers  are 
justified  through  Christ's  propitiatory  sacrifice,  so  that  nothing 
will  ever  be  laid  to  their  charge  ;  and  they  are  sanctified  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  are  conformed  to  the  moral  image  of  God, 
and  fitted  for  heavenly  blessedness.  In  the  language  of  an  ex- 
cellent writer,  "  Both  these  are  found  in  the  same  subject.  Justi- 
fication and  sanctification  should  be  always  discriminated  ;  but 
they  must  never  be  disunited.  Where  they  are  not  distinguished, 
a  rehgious  system  cannot  be  clear ;  and  where  they  are  divided, 
it  can  never  be  safe.  Where  they  are  not  distinguished,  law  and 
gospel,  free-will  and  free-grace,  the  merit  of  man  and  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  run  into  a  mass  of  confusion.  And  where 
they  are  divided,  Pharisaic  pride,  or  Antinomian  presumption,  will 
be  sure  to  follow.  —  Be  it  remembered  then,  that  one  regards  some- 
thing done /or  us,  —  the  other,  something  done  in  us.  The  one  is  a 
relative,  the  other  a  personal  change.  The  one  a  change  in  our 
state,  the  other  in  our  nature.  The  one  is  perfect  at  once,  the  other 
is  gradual.     The  one  is  derived  from  the  obedience  of  our  Saviour, 

17* 


198  JUSTIFICATION. 

the  other  from  his  Spirit.  The  one  gives  us  a  title  to  heaven,  the 
other  a  meetness  for  it." 

The  qviestion  has  been  much  agitated,  whether  on  the  first  act 
of  faith  a  man  receives  a  real  and  final  justification  ;  whether  a 
full  forgiveness  of  all  his  sins  and  his  final  acceptance  with  God 
are  sure  to  him  as  soon  as  he  believes. 

In  regard  to  this,  there  are  two  representations  of  Scripture  to 
be  particularly  noticed.  The  first  is  found  in  those  passages 
which  declare  that  every  one  who  believes  is  pardoned,  and  shall 
be  saved ;  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them  who  are  in 
Ohrist  Jesus.  This  representation  is  often  made,  and  is  made  in 
language  so  plain,  that  its  meaning  cannot  be  easily  misunderstood. 
Unless  every  one  who  truly  believes  in  Christ  is  really  forgiven,  — 
unless  he  is  delivered  from  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  intro- 
duced into  a  state  of  favor  with  God,  and  entitled  to  eternal  life, 
the  promises  to  him  who  believes  are  evidently  deceptive.  The 
other  representation  of  Scripture  to  be  noticed  is,  that  our  final 
salvation  depends  on  our  perseverance  in  faith  and  obedience  to 
the  end  of  life.  "  He  that  endureth  to  the  end,  shall  be  saved." 
Eternal  Hfe  is  promised  to  those,  "  who,  by  patient  continuance  in 
well-doing,  seek  for  glory,  honor,  and  immortality."  And  be- 
lievers are  told,  that  if  they  draw  back,  they  cannot  obtain  final 
salvation.  All  texts  of  this  kind  imply,  that  continuance  in  well 
doing  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  our  final  acceptance.  And 
such  a  condition  is  thought  to  militate  against  the  doctrine,  that 
forgiveness  and  eternal  life  are  made  sure  to  simiers,  as  soon  as 
they  exercise  faith  in  Christ. 

But  in  reality,  is  there  any  inconsistency  between  these  two 
representations  of  Scripture  ?  May  it  not  be  true,  that  forgive- 
ness and  eternal  life  are  secured  to  us  as  soon  as  we  really  believe 
in  Christ,  and  yet,  that  in  order  to  have  eternal  life,  we  must  be 
faithful  unto  death  ?  If  both  of  these  may  be  true  ;  that  is,  —  if 
we  may  be  certainly  pardoned  and  our  names  written  in  heaven 
on  our  first  becoming  believers,  and  if  our  continuing  to  be  be- 
lievers to  the  end  of  life  is  yet  required  as  a  condition  of  our  being 
finally  saved,  then  clearly  these  things  are  not  inconsistent  with 


JUSTIFICATION.  199 

each  other.  In  order  to  make  out  an  inconsistency  between 
them,  you  must  make  out  a  case  in  which  one  of  them  is  true,  and 
the  other  not  true  ;  —  a  case  in  which  a  man  really  believes  so  as 
to  be  entitled  to  the  promise  of  salvation,  and  yet  does  not  finally 
persevere  in  believing.  The  fact,  that  forgiveness  and  eternal 
life  are  promised  on  different  conditions,  occasions  no  diOiculty, 
if  a  compliance  on  our  part  with  one  of  these  conditions  implies 
that  there  will  certainly  be  a  compliance  with  all  the  other  condi- 
tions. A  promise  may  very  properly  and  consistently  be  made  to 
us  of  a  free  and  full  salvation  on  our  first  believing  in  Christ, 
while  yet  we  are  told  that  we  must  persevere  in  faith  and  holiness 
in  order  to  be  saved,  on  supposition  that  our  first  believing  in, 
Christ  has  a  sure  connection  with  our  perseverance  in  faith  and 
holiness.  The  question  then  is,  whether  such  perseverance  ia 
made  certain  to  every  one  who  believes.  I  think  it  evident  from 
Scripture,  that  this  is  the  case.  But  the  proof  of  this  must  be 
postponed  to  a  subsequent  Lecture.  What  I  now  say  is,  that  sup- 
posing this  to  be  true,  no  one  can  pretend  that  the  two  classes  of 
texts  above-mentioned  are  inconsistent  with  each  other. 

But  you  ask,  why  behevers  are  told  that  they  must  persevere 
in  faith  and  holiness  in  order  to  be  saved,  if  their  perseverance  is 
made  certain  by  the  first  act  of  their  faith.  On  this  supposition, 
you  inquire,  why  believers  are  so  frequently  told  that  they  must 
persevere  in  order  to  be  saved.  I  answer  first ;  they  are  told 
this,  because  it  is  a  truth,  and  a  very  important  truth,  —  and  none 
the  less  important,  because  it  is  made  certain.  Secondly ;  they 
are  told  this,  because  they  are  moral  agents,  and  must  be  influ- 
enced to  a  holy  life  by  suitable  motives  ;  and  one  of  the  motives  to 
influence  them  to  persevere  is,  that  they  cannot  be  saved  without 
perseverance  ;  just  as  it  is  a  motive  with  men  to  repent,  that  they 
must  repent  in  order  to  be  saved.  The  necessity  of  perseverance 
constitutes  a  motive  ;  and  as  perseverance  is  none  the  less  neces- 
sary, so  the  motive  from  that  necessity  is  none  the  less  powerful, 
because  perseverance  is  made  certain,  —  considering  that  it  is  made 
certain  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  interfere  at  all  with  our  free  moral 
agency. 


200  JUSTIFICATION. 

This  might  all  be  illustrated  by  an  appeal  to  facts.  Who  that 
truly  believes  in  Christ,  and  has  a  full  persuasion  that  all  true  be- 
lievers will  persevere,  is  prevented  by  that  persuasion  from  feeling 
the  importance  of  persevering,  or  from  the  diligent  use  of  his  facul- 
ties in  the  work  of  persevering,  or  from  earnest  prayer  that  God 
would  give  him  grace  to  persevere  ? 

Here  one  more  question  must  be  briefly  considered.  If  our 
full  and  final  justification,  that  is,  our  full  and  final  forgiveness 
and  acceptance  ivith  Crod  is  made  certain  to  us  on  our  first  believ- 
ing in  Christ,  then  ivhere  is  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  our  pray- 
ing for  forgiveness  in  our  subsequent  life  ?  Why  should  we  go 
over  the  work  of  confessing  sin  and  seeking  pardon,  when  a  full 
and  final  pardon  was  secured  by  the  first  act  of  faith  ? 

I  reply,  first,  that  every  real  Christian  is  led  by  his  own  recti- 
fied feelings  to  confess  his  sins,  to  have  sorrow  for  them,  and  to 
pray  daily  for  pardon,  whatever  hope  or  assurance  he  may  have 
that  he  is  in  a  justified  state.  And  such  confession,  sorrow  and 
prayer  are  conformed  to  the  precepts  of  God's  word  and  to  the 
recorded  example  of  his  prophets  and  apostles,  and  must  therefore 
be  considered  as  just  and  right,  whatever  speculative  difficulties 
may  attend  the  subject. 

I  reply,  secondly,  that  the  full  and  final  forgiveness  which  are 
secured  to  us  as  soon  as  we  believe,  is  secured  in  its  proper  connec- 
tion and  order,  that  is,  in  its  connection  with  continued  faith  and 
prayer ;  and  though  it  is  certainly  secured,  it  is  not  secured  and 
cannot  be  enjoyed  out  of  this  connection.  The  continuance  of  faith 
and  prayer  is  as  really  necessary  to  our  reaping  the  blessings  of  a 
full  forgiveness,  as  faith  or  prayer  was  necessary  to  our  forgive- 
ness at  first.  When  we  depart  from  God  and  transgress  his  law, 
it  is  not  possible  that  we  should  taste  the  joys  of  pardoned  sin  and 
have  peace  with  God  —  in  other  words,  that  we  should  sensibly 
or  really  enjoy  forgiveness,  without  the  renewed  exercise  of  re- 
pentance, faith  and  prayer.  Without  this,  we  could  no  more 
attain  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  involved  in  forgiveness, 
than  we  could  attain  to  the  blessedness  of  being  with  Christ  in 
heaven  without  holiness.     As  the  fact,  that  heaven  is  secured  to 


JUSTIFICATION.  201 

the  believer,  does  not  imply  that  he  can  enjoy  it  without  the  ne- 
cessary qualifications ;  so  the  fact,  that  a  continual  forgiveness  is 
secured  to  him  on  his  first  believing,  does  not  imply  that  he  can 
continue  to  enjoy  that  forgiveness  without  using  the  means  which 
the  appointment  of  God  and  the  nature  of  the  case  make  necessary ; 
in  other  words,  without  continued  faith  and  prayer. 

Consider  also,  that  Christians  have  inward  inducements  to  re- 
pentance and  prayer  far  more  generous  and  noble,  than  the  fear 
of  condemnation.  They  have  seen  and  tasted  that  the  Lord  is 
good  ;  and  a  sense  of  his  goodness  makes  sin  appear  exceedingly 
sinful.  And  when  they  are  conscious  of  it  in  themselves,  they 
are  led  by  the  higher  principles  of  their  renewed  hearts,  to  abhor 
themselves,  penitently  to  confess  their  sin,  and  to  cry  earnestly 
to  God  for  mercy,  as  David  did,  —  "  pardon  my  iniquity  for  it  is 
great." 

In  all  such  cases  we  are  taught  by  the  wisdom  from  above  to 
perform  faithfully  the  duties  enjoined  upon  us  by  the  word  of  God 
and  then  to  let  our  right  practice,  our  devout  and  holy  life  clear 
away  our  difficulties,  and  straighten  what  is  crooked  in  our  intel- 
lectual habits. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  orthodox  Protestants  generally,  that  we 
are  justified  through  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  This  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  creeds  adopted  by  the  Westminster  Assembly 
of  Divines,  by  the  Puritans  of  England  and  by  CongregationaUsts 
and  Presbyterians  in  the  United  States  of  America,  by  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  both  countries,  and  by  the  whole  body  of  Reformed 
churches  in  Europe  from  the  time  of  Luther. 

But  this  doctrine,  or  rather  this  manner  of  stating  it,  has  for 
some  time  past  been  objected  to  by  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  this 
country,  chiefly  in  New  England.  And  many  ministers  and  lay- 
men, who  have  not  come  to  a  decision  on  the  subject,  have  an 
apprehension,  that  this  form  of  the  doctrine  must  be  given  up. 
When  we  inquire  for  the  reason  of  this  dissent,  we  find  it  to  be  no 
other  than  this  ;  that  the  doctrine  is  thought  to  imply  that  there 
is  a  literal  transfer  of  moral  character,  or  personal  attributes,  from 
one  to  another ;  —  that  when  it  is  said,  that  Adam's  sin  was 


202  JUSTIFICATION. 

imputed  to  us,  the  meaning  is,  that  Adam's  sinful  act  became 
literally  our  act ;  that  we  ourselves  did  really  commit  the  sin  of 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  are  in  our  own  persons  blame- 
worthy for  it ;  that  our  sins  having  been  imputed  to  Christ  implies 
that  he  was  really  a  transgressor,  that  he  himself  committed  all 
the  sins  of  those  for  whom  he  died,  and  so  was,  in  reality,  an 
exceedingly  unholy  man,  and  an  object  of  the  divine  displeasure  ; 
and  that  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us  implies 
that  his  righteousness  or  holiness  is  literally  transferred  to  us,  so 
that  we  ourselves  are  free  from  the  defilement  of  sin,  and  are  as 
truly  righteous,  and  as  worthy  of  the  divine  complacency,  as 
Christ  was.  This  apprehension  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine, 
is  at  the  bottom  of  the  objections  urged  against  it.  For  when 
objectors  state  the  reason  of  their  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation, they  say  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  there  is  a  transfer  of 
moral  good  or  evil  from  one  person  to  another,  or  that  one  can  be 
deserving  of  praise  or  blame  for  the  character  or  actions  of  another. 
They  say,  they  cannot  receive  a  doctrine  which  is  contrary  to 
their  own  consciousness,  and  which  is  evidently  absurd.  This  is 
their  argument. 

But  I  say,  in  reply,  that  the  men  referred  to  are  totally  mis- 
taken, as  to  the  import  of  the  doctrine  against  which  they  object. 
The  doctrine  never  had  any  such  meaning  as  they  give  it.  There 
is  no  reason,  either  from  Scripture  or  from  standard  Calvinistic 
divines,  to  understand  the  word  impute  in  this  manner.  When 
God  imputes  to  men  their  own  sins,  the  meaning  evidently  is,  that 
he  holds  them  guilty  and  punishes  them  ;  and  his  not  imputing  sin 
is  his  withholding  punishment.  From  Rom.  4:  3 — 8  it  appears,  that 
not  to  impute  sin,  and  to  impute  righteousness,  is  the  same  thing. 
Paul  shows  the  meaning  of  the  word,  when  he  says  to  Philemon 
respecting  Onesimus, "  If  he  hath  wronged  thee  or  oweth  thee  aught, 
jmt  that  to  mine  account;  "  according  to  the  original  Greek,  impute 
it  or  reckon  it  to  me —  consider  it  as  my  debt ;  "I  will  repay  it." 
In  all  such  cases  the  sense  of  the  word,  according  to  the  best 
authorities,  is,  "  to  reckon  to  one  what  does  not  properly  belong 
to  him."     Thus,  Avhen  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be 


JUSTIFICATION  203 

imputed  to  us,  the  meaning  is  not,  that  it  properly  belongs  to  us 
as  our  own  personal  righteousness,  but  that  it  is  so  reckoned  to  us, 
or  put  to  our  account,  that  we  share  the  benefits  of  it,  or  are 
treated  as  though  we  were  righteous.  In  other  words,  that  the 
fruits  of  Christ's  righteousness  are  conferred  upon  us.  It  is  in 
this  manner  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  has  been  understood 
and  explained  by  its  most  intelligent  advocates.  It  is  true,  that 
some  Antinomian  writers  have  advanced  opinions  on  the  subject, 
which  are  totally  unscriptural  and  of  the  most  immoral  tendency. 
And  some  others,  who  have  been  sound  in  the  faith,  particularly 
among  the  early  Reformers,  have  used  expressions  which,  if  taken 
by  themselves,  without  regard  to  their  peculiar  circumstances, 
would  convey  a  different  meaning  of  the  doctrine  from  the  one  I 
have  given.  But  a  candid  and  thorough  examination  of  the  writ- 
ings of  the  standard  orthodox  divines  will  show,  that  the  meaning 
put  upon  the  doctrine  by  some  late  New  England  divines  is  wholly 
unauthorized.  The  most  learned  and  discriminating  among  the 
orthodox  divines,  both  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic,  take  special  pains 
to  show,  that  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us  does 
not  imply  that  his  righteousness  is  transferred  to  us,  or*  infused 
into  us,  so  as  to  become  our  personal  attribute^  but  only  that  we 
partake  of  its  benefits  ;  that  his  righteousness  is  ours  imputatively. 
Paul  says  righteousness  is  imputed  to  believers  ;  that  is,  they  are 
benefitted  by  a  righteousness  which  is  not  their  own. 

This  view  of  imputation  might  be  confirmed  by  quotations  from 
Turretine,  and  all  the  principal  orthodox  divines,  ancient  and 
modem.  Calvin  says  :  "  To  place  our  righteousness  in  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  is  to  affirm,  that  hereby  only  we  are  accounted 
righteous,  because  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us,  as  if 
it  were  our  own.^^  Fuller's  explanation  is  more  perspicuous. 
"  Imputation,"  he  says,  "  is  neither  the  actual  transference  of 
our  sins  to  Christ,  so  as  to  constitute  him  really  a  sinner,  nor  the 
actual  transference  of  his  righteousness  to  us,  so  as  to  constitute 
us  really  innocent  and  praiseworthy  ;  but  the  legal  counting  of 
our  sins  to  him,  so  as  that  he  endured  the  consequences  of  them; 
and  the  legal  counting  of  his  righteousness  to  us,  so  as  that  we 


204  JUSTIFICATION. 

enjoy  the  blessings  given  in  reward  of  it^  Dr.  George  Payne 
says,  still  more  clearly  and  guardedly,  that  "  the  Scripture  sense 
of  the  phrase,  to  count  sin  or  righteousness  to  an  individual, 
(whether  his  own  or  that  of  some  one  else,)  is  to  treat  that  indi- 
vidual as  a  sinful  or  righteous  man.''''  He  says :  "  This  view  of 
imputation  assumes,  that  the  one  perfect  work  of  the  Son  of  God 
is  the  ground  of  justification,  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other." 
And  he  considers  it  as  the  substance  of  the  doctrine,  that  the 
believer  is  treated  as  a  just  man,  for  the  sake  of  the  righteousness 
of  Immanuel,  He  makes  it  evident,  that  the  Scripture  phrase  to 
impute  sin  or  righteousness  to  any  one  means,  to  treat  him  as  if 
he  were  a  sinful  or  a  righteous  man.  And  so  "  to  impute  Christ's 
righteousness  to  us,  is  to  treat  us  as  though  we  possessed  it,  or 
"  to  give  us  eternal  life  in  consequence  of  it."  Dr.  Gardiner 
Spring  represents  the  subject  in  the  same  light.  "  Righteousness 
is  made  over  to  the  believer,  and  put,  as  it  were,  upon  him;  and 
he  enjoys  the  full  benefit  of  it,  just  as  though  it  were  his  own." 
*'  According  to  God's  gracious  method  of  reckoning  in  the  gospel, 
believers  are  treated  as  righteous,  because  Christ  himself,  their 
covenant  Head  and  Representative,  is  righteous.  His  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  to  them,  or  set  down  to  their  account.  Though  it 
does  not  personally  belong  to  them,  it  is  reckoned  to  them  ;  as  if 
it  were  their  own." 

This,  then,  is  the  result.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
imputed  to  believers,  or  is  so  reckoned  to  their  account  as  to  be 
the  moral  basis  of  God's  special  favor  to  them ;  so  imputed  or 
made  over  to  them,  that  they  receive  eternal  life  on  account 
of  it. 

Now  what  right  has  any  man  to  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation implies  anything  contrary  to  this ;  especially  to  say,  that  it 
implies  such  an  impossibility  as  a  real  transfer  of  moral  character 
from  one  to  another,  and  then  to  argue  against  it  on  that  ground  ? 
What  author,  entitled  to  respect  among  the  Calvinists,  has  ever 
advanced  a  doctrine  containing  such  an  absurdity,  or  given  such 
an  explanation  of  justification  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ  ? 


JUSTIFICATION.  205 

Do  you  still  object  to  the  word  imputation?  But  you  cannot 
fail  to  see  that  the  Scriptures  really  teach  the  doctrine  under 
consideration,  and  that  in  some  passages  they  employ  language 
very  similar  to  that  against  which  you  object.  They  speak  of 
imputing  righteousness  without  works,  that  is,  imputing  righteous- 
ness where  personal  righteousness  is  wanting.  And  they  even 
speak  of  one  man  as  doing  what  was  done  by  another  who  lived 
long  before  him.  "  Levi,"  a  descendant  of  Abraham,  '■^  paid  tithes 
in  Abraham  ;  for  he  was  in  the  loins  of  his  father  when  Melchise- 
dec  met  him  ;  "  which  doubtless  means  that  Levi,  in  consequence 
of  his  relation  to  Abraham,  came  under  the  influence  of  what 
Abraham  did  ;  that  Abraham's  act  was  imputed  or  reckoned  to 
him,  so  that  it  was  as  though  he  himself  had  paid  tithes  to  Mel- 
chisedec,  and  had  thus  acknowledged  his  inferiority  to  that  priest 
of  the  Most  High.  In  conformity  with  this  language,  the  Cate- 
chism says,  that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam  "  sinned  in  him  and 
fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression."  This  expression  is 
marked  with  freedom  and  boldness  ;  but  it  is  no  more  free  and 
bold  than  the  language  of  Scripture.  The  meaning  of  it  is,  that 
Adam  acted  as  the  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race, 
and  that  they  partake  of  the  evil  effects  of  his  sin,  or  that  their 
moral  depravity  and  ruin  come  in  consequence  of  his  sin ;  accord- 
ing to  Rom.  5:  12—19. 

The  righteousness  of  Christ  must  be  understood  to  consist  in 
his  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  and  his  death  on  the  cross ;  or, 
as  the  Apostle  expresses  it,  his  obedience  unto  death.  His  volun- 
tary death  was  in  compliance  with  the  Father's  command,  and  so 
was  an  essential  part  of  his  obedience.  His  righteousness,  or  his 
merits  as  Redeemer,  must  comprise  the  whole  of  what  he  did  and 
suflfered  for  us  in  his  state  of  humiliation. 

But  while  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  believers 
does  not  mean  that  his  righteousness  is  literally  transferred  to 
them  ;  or  that  it  is  infused  into  them,  so  as  to  make  them  person- 
ally righteous  ;  it  is  far  from  being  intended  that  they  can  be 
saved  without  being  themselves  personally  righteous  or  holy.  For 
surely  he  did  not  die  to  purchase  for  us  liberty  to  Hve  in  sin. 

VOL.  ni.  18 


206  JUSTIFICATION. 

Instead  of  this,  one  essential  object  of  his  mission  was  to  redeem 
us  from  all  iniquity  and  to  make  us  spiritual  and  holy.  I  must 
repeat  it,  that  our  doctrine  is  simply  this,  —  that  God  saves  us 
from  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  grants  us  the  blessings 
of  salvation,  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  We 
receive  good  from  his  righteousness,  as  though  it  were  our  own. 
This  is  the  great  doctrine  of  the  gospel, —  "  articalus  stantis  vel 
cadentis  ecclesiae." 

Do  you  question  the  propriety  or  the  expediency  of  this  mode 
of  stating  the  doctrine  of  justification,  because  it  has  sometimes 
been  so  understood  as  to  have  an  Antinomian  tendency  ?  I 
reply,  that  the  language  we  employ  will  not  fairly  admit  of  such 
a  construction,  and  that  the  objection  proceeds  wholly  on  the 
ground  of  a  misapprehension.  And  how  can  this  be  avoided  by 
changing  the  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  ?  For  what  language 
can  be  used  by  any  man,  whether  inspired  or  not,  which  can  be 
secured  against  the  danger  of  being  misunderstood  and  misrepre- 
sented, and  of  thus  becoming  the  occasion  of  error  ?  And  is  it 
expedient  —  nay,  is  it  admissible  —  that  the  customary  language 
of  theology,  and  the  language  of  prayer  and  religious  conver- 
sation, and  the  language  of  God's  word,  too,  should  be  given  up 
or  changed,  because  it  has  been,  or  possibly  may  be,  misrepre- 
sented ?  And  if  you  should  give  it  up,  or  substitute  other 
language  in  its  place,  could  you  thereby  prevent  the  possibihty  of 
mistake  ?  In  regard  to  the  propriety  of  any  phraseology,  the 
question  is  not,  whether  a  wrong  sense  can  be  put  upon  it,  but 
whether  it  is  adapted,  when  candidly  interpreted,  to  convey  a  true 
and  Scriptural  sense.  The  word  impute,  as  employed  in  the  Cate- 
chism, has  been  in  general  use  for  ages  among  the  advocates  of  the 
truth,  to  set  forth  the  gospel  doctrine  of  justification  ;  and  I  main- 
tain that  this  use  is  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and  with  the 
common  laws  of  language. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  done  in  this  case,  to  guard  against  error 
and  to  convey  a  just  idea  of  the  doctrine  ?  The  same,  I  reply, 
as  is  done  in  other  like  cases.  The  theological  terms,  which  are 
used  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  must  be  carefully  explained. 


JUSTIFICATION.  207 

We  must  show  what  sense  is  intended,  and  what  sense  is  to  be 
avoided.  It  is,  in  my  judgment,  far  better  to  retain  the  phraseo- 
logy in  common  use,  especially  when  it  is  in  itself  unexception- 
able, than  to  introduce  a  new  phraseology.  All  experience  shows 
that  any  change  in  the  settled  mode  of  speech,  particularly  on 
Buch  a  subject,  is  attended  with  difficulty  and  danger.  For  the 
most  part,  it  occasions  disadvantage  to  the  cause  of  truth.  And 
I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  it  is  generally  too  evident,  that  those 
who  are  forward  to  lay  aside  the  common  language  by  which 
orthodox  doctrines  have  been  expressed,  either  have  renounced, 
or  are  inclined  to  renounce,  the  doctrines  themselves.  Examples 
of  this  have  frequently  occurred,  in  regard  to  the  common  phrase- 
ology respecting  the  Trinity,  atonement,  the  new  birth,  and  other 
kindred  subjects.  Men  have  professedly  objected  merely  to  the 
terms  of  the  orthodox  creed,  not  seeming  to  extend  their  objec- 
tions to  the  creed  itself.  But  time  has  often  made  it  manifest, 
that  their  objections  really  lay  against  the  doctrines  contained  in 
the  creed,  and  that  they  began  to  depart  from  what  has  been  held 
to  be  Scripture  truth,  before  they  found  fault  with  the  common 
phraseology.  Hence  the  importance  of  the  direction  of  the  Apoa- 
tle,  to  "  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words."  * 

*  I  cannot  suffer  the  above  remarks  to  stand  without  an  exception.  I  have 
known  many  ministers,  who  have  very  honestly  laid  aside  the  word  impute,  in 
regard  to  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  because  they  have 
somehow  overlooked  its  real  import,  while  they  have  earnestly  maintained  the 
very  doctrines  which  are  held  by  those  who  freely  use  the  word. 

I  ought,  in  impartial  justice,  to  add  one  thing  more ;  namely,  that  the  language 
Bometimes  employed  by  Luther  and  other  Reformers,  in  the  heat  of  their  contro- 
versy with  the  Papists  on  the  present  subject,  has  the  stamp  of  extravagance  and 
rashness,  and  is  incapable  of  being  justified.  Many  of  the  passages  quoted  by 
Moehlcr,  in  his  ingenious  work  on  Symbolism,  give  more  plausibility  than  ought 
to  be  given  to  his  objections  against  the  Reformation.  The  Reformation  itself, 
and  the  great  body  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  may  be,  and  have  been, 
triumphantly  defended.  But  there  is  occasionally  an  indiscretion,  excess,  and 
violence  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  Reformers,  which  cannot  be  defended. 


LECTURE  cm. 


PAUL  AND  JAMES  KECONCILED.   THE  ORTHODOX  DOCTRINE  PRO- 
MOTIVE OF  GOOD  WORKS. 

To  reconcile  the  writings  of  Paul  and  James  on  the  subject  of 
justijBcation,  has  to  many  appeared  very  difficult,  and  to  some 
impossible.  But  a  proper  attention  to  the  rules  of  interpretation 
will,  I  think,  contribute  not  a  little  towards  a  satifactory  solution 
of  the  difficulty.  It  is  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  important 
rules  for  interpreting  the  language  of  any  writer,  especially  of 
one  who  wrote  in  former  times,  that  we  should,  as  far  as  we  can, 
consider  the  circumstances  of  the  writer,  the  particular  occasion 
of  his  writing,  the  object  he  had  in  view,  the  error  he  meant 
to  oppose,  and  the  truth  he  aimed  to  defend  ;  in  a  word,  that  we 
should,  as  far  "as  possible,  put  ourselves  in  the  condition  of  the 
writer. 

What,  then,  was  the  condition  of  Paul  ?  What  was  the  error 
he  wished  to  confute,  and  the  doctrine  he  undertook  to  teach  and 
defend  ?  This  we  learn  from  his  writings,  particularly  from  his 
Epistles  to  the  believers  at  Rome  and  Galatia.  His  duty,  as  an 
Apostle,  required  him  to  expose  the  mistake  of  those  who  sought 
to  be  justified  by  a  conformity  with  the  precepts  of  the  law  —  who 
went  about  to  establish,  by  their  own  works,  a  righteousness  on 
which  they  could  depend  for  salvation.  To  convince  them  of  their 
error,  he  presented  before  them  the  requirements  and  the  sanc- 
tions of  the  divine  law.  He  showed  them  that  the  law  promised 
life  to  obedience,  and  threatened  death  for  transgression ;  that  all 


JUSTIFICATION.       PAUL    AND    JAMES.  209 

men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  were  transgressors,  and  of  course  were 
cut  off  from  the  possibility  of  being  justified  by  the  law,  and  were 
under  the  sentence  of  condemnation.  He  also  taught  them,  that 
in  the  dispensation  of  grace,  Christ  had  made  propitiation  for  sin, 
and  offered  them  eternal  life ;  that  whosoever  would  receive  the 
testimony  of  God,  and  believe  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  should  be 
saved  ;  that  justification  before  God  could  be  obtained  only  in 
this  new  and  living  way,  and  was  altogether  a  matter  of  grace. 
This  was  the  doctrine  of  Paul  —  the  doctrine  which  existing  cir- 
cumstances required  him  to  teach  and  defend.  Had  he  been  in 
the  circumstances  of  James,  he  would  doubtless  have  taught  the 
same  doctrine  with  him  ;  and  though  in  circumstances  so  different, 
he  did  in  fact  teach  substantially  the  same  thing,  affirming  and 
proving  clearly  and  repeatedly,  in  his  own  way,  that  his  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  was  as  far  as  possible  from  giving  or  admit- 
ting any  license  to  neglect  good  works.  The  moment  Paul  turned 
his  thoughts  to  that  point,  he  was  as  fully  awake  to  the  necessity 
of  good  works  as  James  was,  and  asserted  it  as  strongly  and 
decidedly.  "  Shall  we  sin,"  he  said,  "  because  we  are  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace  ?  "  He  taught  that  being  under  the 
dispensation  of  grace,  and  being  justified  by  faith,  instead  of  dis- 
pensing with  obedience  to  the  law,  effectually  secured  it ;  and  thus 
he  made  it  perfectly  manifest,  that  the  doctrine  which  he  so  ear- 
nestly taught  was  by  no  means  exposed  to  the  objection,  which  he 
saw  would  be  brought  against  it ;  namely,  that  it  encouraged  the 
neglect  of  good  works,  or  opened  a  door  for  disobedience.  And 
it  will  be  seen  before  we  have  done,  that  as  Paul  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  James,  James  taught  the  doctrine  of  Paul. 

The  Apostle  James  wrote  to  those  who  professed  to  have  faith, 
but  had  not  works  ;  and  he  told  them  plainly  that  their  faith,  that 
is,  faith  not  productive  of  good  works,  could  not  save  them. 
Why  ?  Because  "  being  alone,"  that  is,  not  attended  with  good 
works,  it  was  "  deadP  See  James  2:  17.  Such  faith  was  not 
the  faith  which  justifies  and  saves,  and  it  was  not  the  faith  of 
which  Paul  speaks.  In  verse  18  he  teaches,  that  there  is  no  pos- 
sible way  to  ihow  our  faith,  that  is,  to  show  that  we  have  true 

18* 


210  JUSTIFICATION.       PAUL    AND    JAMES. 

faith,  but  by  works  of  benevolence.  In  verse  19  he  pursues  the 
same  subject,  and  refers  to  the  faith  of  devils.  For  what  pur- 
pose ?  Manifestly  to  illustrate  the  worthlessness  of  that  faith 
which  is  not  productive  of  good  works,  and  which  he  repeatedly 
declares  to  be  "  dead." 

Thus  we  see  clearly  what  was  the  teaching  of  James.  The 
faith  which  he  calls  dead,  and  which  he  says  cannot  save,  and 
which  he  treats  as  no  better  than  the  faith  of  devils,  was  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  faith  of  which  Paul  speaks,  and  which  he 
declares  to  be  justifying  faith.  Paul  never  said  that  we  can  he 
justified  by  a  dead  faith.  And  when  James  says  we  cannot  he 
justified  hy  a  dead  faith,  he  does  not  contradict  Paul.  For  what 
does  James  really  teach  ?  Why,  he  teaches  that  a  particular 
kind  of  faith,  that  is,  a  dead  faith,  does  not  justify.  And  what 
does  Paul  teach  ?  He  teaches  that  another  kind  of  faith  does 
justify.  They  teach  tv/o  distinct  truths,  as  their  different  occa- 
sions required.  But  those  truths,  like  all  other  truths,  though 
distinct,  are  entirely  consistent.  And  the  ministers  of  Christ,  at 
this  day,  must  teach  what  Paul  taught  and  also  what  James 
taught.     If  they  fail  in  either,  they  are  wanting  in  fidelity. 

Look  again.  Did  Paul  mean  to  recommend  that  faith  which 
James  declares  to  be  useless  ?  Or  did  James  undervalue  that 
faith  which  Paul  declares  to  be  so  important  ?  No.  What  they 
did  was  to  assert  different  truths,  and  to  confute  different  errors, 
just  as  their  different  circumstances  rendered  necessary.  And 
the  language  they  used,  like  all  the  language  of  good  writers, 
corresponded  with  their  different  subjects,  and  with  their  different 
tastes  and  habits. 

Some  authors  incline  to  the  idea,  that  while  Paul  and  James 
speak  of  different  kinds  of  justification,  they  speak  of  the  same 
kind  of  faith.  But  it  lies  on  the  very  face  of  what  the  two 
apostles  have  written,  that  their  minds  were  turned  upon  two  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  faith  ;  the  one  dead  and  fruitless,  the  other  ahve 
and  efficacious.  James  says,  a  dead  faith,  a  faith  like  what  the 
devils  have,  cannot  justify.  But  Paul  speaks  of  a  faith  which 
does  justify.     And  yet  Paul  himself  sometimes  does  just  what 


JUSTIFICATION.       PAUL    AND    JAMES.  211 

James  does,  that  is,  expressly  refers  to  a  kind  of  faith  which  is  of 
no  avail,  because  it  is  separate  from  love,  and  is  of  course  sepa- 
rate from  those  good  works  which  are  the  fruits  of  love.  See 
1  Cor.  13:  2,  "  And  though  I  have  all  faith  —  and  have  not  char- 
ity, I  am  nothing." 

But  these  two  apostles  treat  not  only  of  different  kinds  of  faith^ 
but  of  different  kinds  of  justification  also.  Wardlaw  says,  "  The 
true  solution  of  the  diflSculty  appears  to  be,  that  the  subjects  of 
which  these  inspired  writers  treat,  are  not  the  same.  They  are 
reasoning  against  different  descriptions  of  persons,  and  are  speak- 
ing of  different  justifications.  The  one  treats  of  the  justification 
before  God  of  a  sinner  considered  as  condemned  hy  the  law  ;  the 
other  treats  of  a  believer  in  Christ  considered  in  that  capacity  y" 
that  is,  considered  as  a  believer.  In  accordance  with  this.  Fuller 
says,  "  By  justification,  Paul  meant  the  acceptance  of  a  sinner 
before  God.  But  James  refers  to  his  being  approved  of  God  a% 
a  true  Christian;''''  that  is,  as  having  true  faith.  The  justifica- 
tion of  which  Paul  treats,  that  is,  forgiveness  and  acceptance  with 
God,  is,  we  have  seen,  "  by  faith,  that  it  might  be  of  grace." 
The  other  justification  is  by  works  ;  which  is  the  same  as  saying, 
that  those  who  do  good  works  are  manifested  to  be  true  believers — 
are  seen  to  be  approved  of  God  —  that  is,  are  seen  to  have  true, 
justifying  faith  ;  —  as  James  says,  "  I  will  shoiv  thee  my  faith  by 
my  works."  And  in  exact  accordance  with  this,  he  says,  "  Was 
not  Abraham  justified  by  works  when  he  offered  up  Isaac  his  son 
upon  the  altar  ?"  How  justified  ?  The  passage  referred  to  shows. 
Gen.  22:  12.  The  angel  said  to  Abraham,  "  Now  I  know  that 
thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only 
son  from  me."  "  Now  I  know,"  that  is,  it  is  now  made  manifest^ 
"  that  thou  fearest  God."  In  this  way  "  Abraham  w^as  justified 
by  works  when  he  offered  up  his  son."  "  His  faith  wrought  with 
his  works;"  so  James  has  it;  or  as  it  is,  Heb.  11:  17,  "He 
offered  up  Isaac  by  faiths  What  he  did  was  the  out-going  and 
manifestation  of  faith.  By  this  act  of  obedience  it  was  known 
that  he  feared  God,  or  was  a  true  believer.  In  like  manner  it  is 
said,  Heb.  11:  4,  that  Abel,  by  the  sacrifice  he  offered  to  God, 


212  JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMBS. 

obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous.  His  obedience  was  a 
proof  or  evidence  that  he  was  righteous.  By  his  works  he  Avas 
justified  declaratively.  And  it  was,  I  apprehend,  in  this  sense, 
that  Jesus  said.  Matt.  12:  37,  "  By  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justi- 
fied, and  by  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  condemned."  The  words 
which  men  are  accustomed  to  speak,  will  be  evidence  in  their  fa- 
vor, or  against  them,  —  will  show  that  they  are  justified  and  ap- 
proved of  God,  or  disapproved.  The  same  appears  to  be  the 
sense  of  Rom.  2:  13.  "  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before 
God ;  but  the  doers  of  the  law  are  justified."  Doing  the  works 
of  the  law  proves  men  to  be  in  a  justified  state. 

One  thing  is  remarkable,  though  generally  overlooked  ;  namely, 
that  James  quotes  the  very  passage,  Gen.  15:  6,  which  Paul 
quotes,  Rom.  4:  3,  and  in  other  places,  and  to  which  he  attaches 
so  much  importance.  James  says,  "  And  that  Scripture  was  ful- 
filled which  says,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness."  Now  if  the  most  important  text,  by 
which  Paul  confirms  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  was  also 
fulfilled  in  the  doctrine  of  James  ;  what  reason  can  there  be  to 
think  their  doctrines  inconsistent  with  each  other  ?  They  did  in- 
deed teach  two  different  branches  of  divine  truth.  But  it  is  per- 
fectly plain  that  neither  of  them  interferes  with  the  teaching  of 
the  other.  They  both  say,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness  ;  that  is,  he  was  justified  by 
faith.  And  they  both  maintain  with  equal  earnestness,  though  in 
different  language,  that  those  who  have  faith  will  show  it  by  good 
works.  Sinners  who  believe,  are  justified  before  God  by  faith  ; 
and  they  are  justified  as  Christians  —  they  are  made  known  as 
those  who  fear  God  and  are  accepted  of  him,  by  works  of  obe- 
dience. Both  justifications  are  necessary.  And  they  are  not 
only  consistent,  but  they  imply  each  other.  The  first  leads  to  the 
second  ;  and  the  second  results  from  the  first.  James  does  not 
say,  that  justification,  taken  in  the  same  sense,  is  both  by  faith 
and  by  works.  But  he  teaches,  that  there  is  a  justification  by 
works,  as  well  as  a  justification  by  faith  ;  and  that  there  cannot 
be  the  latter  where  there  is  not  the  former,  as  no  man  is  justified 


JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES.  213 

by  faith,  as  a  sinner,  who  is  not  also,  in  due  time,  justified  by 
works  as  a  believer. 

Knapp  suggests  that  the  works  of  law,  whether  moral  or  cere- 
monial, which  Paul  excludes  from  being  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion, are  essentially  different  from  the  good  works  which  are  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  and  which  secure  a  gracious  reward.  But  he 
does  not  make  the  distinction  clear.  And  if  there  is  such  a  dis- 
tinction, it  must  still  be  true,  that  good  works,  works  of  obedience 
done  from  the  best  motives,  can  have  no  place  as  the  ground  or 
procuring  cause  of  our  forgiveness  and  acceptance  with  God. 

On  the  whole,  there  appears  no  more  difference  between  the 
teachings  of  Paul  and  James,  than  what  naturally  arose  from  the 
difference  in  their  subjects,  and  in  their  genius,  taste,  and  manner 
of  writing.  And  all  which  both  of  them  have  written  is  as  im- 
portant at  the  present  time,  as  it  was  in  their  day,  to  make  out  a 
consistent  and  complete  system  of  doctrinal  and  practical  truth. 

A  heavy  charge  has  been  constantly  brought  by  our  opponents 
against  our  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  encouraging  men 
to  live  in  sin  —  as  opening  the  door  to  all  manner  of  wickedness. 
But  let  us  pause  a  little,  and  see  whether  the  charge  is  founded 
in  truth. 

First.  It  is  indeed  true,  according  to  our  doctrine,  that  good 
works  are  of  no  account  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  our  forgive- 
ness and  acceptance  with  God.  But  this  by  no  means  implies  that 
good  works  are  of  no  account  in  other  ways.  Because  we  hold 
that  works  are  not  necessary  in  one  particular  respect,  we  cannot 
be  justly  charged  with  holding  that  they  are  not  necessary  in 
other  respects.  How  often  is  it  the  case  that  a  thing  is  indispensar 
ble,  yea,  of  the  highest  consequence,  in  regard  to  particular  ob- 
jects, while  it  has  no  relation  to  some  other  object,  and  so  is  of  no 
use  in  regard  to  it.  It  is  then  evident,  that  those  who  urge  this 
allegation  against  our  doctrine,  are  chargeable  with  sophistical 
reasoning.  Their  objection,  as  every  one  must  see,  has  no  kind 
of  force.  And  it  is  not  only  without  force,  but  is  exceedingly  un- 
just, seeing  we  are  not  behind  any  Christians  in  asserting  and  in- 


214  JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES. 

sisting  upon  the  importance  and  necessity  of  good  works, — 
though  we  do  not  allow  them  to  be  the  proper  basis  of  justification. 

Secondly.  If  any,  who  profess  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  do  in  fact  regard  and  use  it  as  an  encouragement 
to  sin ;  is  it  right  that  their  misapplication  and  abuse  of  the  doc- 
trine should  be  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  itself  ?  There 
were  those  in  the  Apostle's  day,  who  turned  the  grace  of  God 
into  licentiousness.  But  would  it  be  right  to  make  their  wicked- 
ness an  objection  to  the  doctrine  which  they  thus  perverted  —  es- 
pecially when  the  Apostle  taught  that  the  doctrine  had  a  dii-ectly 
contrary  influence  ?  Every  truth  is  liable  to  misconception  and 
abuse,  and  none  more  so  than  this  doctrine  of  justification  and 
salvation  by  grace. 

Thirdly.  Look  at  facts.  Are  not  those  Christians,  who  hold 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  much  distinguished  for 
good  works  —  are  they  not  as  uniformly  obedient  to  the  divine 
commands,  as  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  ?  The  most  strenuous 
opposers  of  orthodoxy  have  admitted  this,  and  more  than  this. 
And  do  not  the  facts  in  the  case  show,  that  those  who  maintain 
our  doctrine,  instead  of  undervaluing  good  works,  do  really  and 
practically  consider  them  as  of  the  highest  moment,  and  as  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  salvation  ? 

Fourthly.  Come  to  the  doctrine  itself.  I  hold  that  the  doc- 
trine, rightly  apprehended,  contains,  or  carries  along  with  it,  a 
combination  of  the  highest  conceivable  motives  to  the  practice  of 
good  works.  I  begin  with  love,  which  is  the  most  powerful  and 
efficacious  of  all  motives  to  obedience.  Christ  says,  they  that 
love  him  will  keep  his  commandments.  It  must  be  so.  Obedi- 
ence is  the  natural  and  necessary  expression  of  love  ;  it  is  love 
itself,  acted  out  in  the  life.  But  this  powerful  principle  is  insepa- 
rable from  faith.  Faith  works  hy  love.  That  faith  which  is  with- 
out love,  Paul  says,  is  without  value. 

Here  comes  in  also  the  powerful  influence  of  gratitude.  Be- 
lievers, having  a  full  conviction  that  they  cannot  be  saved  by  their 
own  works,  and  receiving  salvation  as  a  free  gift,  have,  and  are 
sensible  that  they  have,  the  strongest  reasons  for  gratitude.    They 


JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES.  215 

feel  that  they  are  not  their  own  —  that  they  belong  to  him  who 
has  bought  them  with  his  own  precious  blood,  and  has  bestowed 
upon  them  an  unmerited  gift  of  infinite  worth  ;  and  their  great 
concern  is  to  live  to  him  who  died  for  them,  and  to  glorify  him  by 
bearing  much  fruit. 

It  is  moreover  true,  according  to  the  representation  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  the  very  faith  by  which  believers  are  justified,  pu- 
rifies their  hearts,  and  overcomes  the  world,  and  that  it  is  the 
grand,  efficacious  principle  of  a  holy  life.  Christians  walk  by 
faith. 

We  here  see,  and  we  have  before  seen,  what  is  the  nature  and 
influence  of  faith.  No  other  motives  to  obedience  have  so  great 
a  power,  as  those  which  are  brought  to  act  upon  the  mind  by  faith. 
To  say  then  that  justification  by  faith  leads  to  the  neglect  of  good 
works,  is  a  contradiction.  It  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  they  who 
are  influenced  by  the  strongest  possible  motives  to  obey,  will  be 
the  most  likely  to  disobey.  I  do  not  say  that  these  motives  exert 
such  an  influence  upon  Christians  notwithstanding  their  belief  in 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  but  that  the  motives  are  in- 
volved in  the  doctrine  itself^  and  that  all  who  truly  embrace  the 
doctrine,  will  feel  that  influence,  and  will  feel  it  more  effectually 
in  proportion  as  they  receive  the  doctrine  more  heartily,  and  hold 
it  with  a  firmer  grasp. 

And  here  plain  truth  compels  me  to  saj,  that  Swedenborg, 
Catholics,  Socinians  and  others  are  guilty  of  injustice  seldom 
equalled,  when  they  allege,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  in 
regard  to  justification  is  of  an  immoral  tendency,  and  leads  to  the 
practice  of  impiety  and  vice.  If  they  would  attend  to  Scripture 
testimony,  and  to  the  declared  belief  and  the  known  practice  of 
the  Reformers  —  if  they  would  regard  arguments  or  facts,  they 
"would  cease  to  make  use  of  an  objection  which  has  thousands  of 
times  been  shown  to  be  utterly  groundless. 

Look  then  for  a  few  moments  at  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formers, and  of  those  who  have  since  followed  their  faith,  in 
regard  to  justification  and  good  works.  This  you  will  best 
learn   from   their   Symbols   or   published    Confessions,   in  which 


216  JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES. 

they  have  set  forth  their  behef  -with  all  possible  clearness  and 
care. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  drawn  up,  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  Protestant  Princes,  by  Melancthon,  in  the  year  1530,  and  ex- 
presses the  views  of  the  Reformers  with  remai-kable  perspicuity. 
The  following  extracts  show  how  they  understood  and  taught  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  and  of  good  works :  "  Notwithstanding 
the  gospel  requires  repentance  —  it  teacheth  us  that  remission  13 
given  us  freely,  that  is,  that  it  doth  not  depend  on  the  condition 
of  our  own  worthiness,  nor  is  given  for  any  works  that  went  be- 
fore, nor  for  the  worthiness  of  such  as  follow  after."  —  "  Although 
contrition  in  repentance  is  necessary,  yet  we  must  know  that  re- 
mission of  sins  was  given  unto  us,  and  that  we  are  made  just  of 
unjust,  that  is,  reconciled  or  acceptable  — freely  for  Christy  and 
not  for  the  worthiness  of  our  contrition,  or  of  any  good  works 
which  either  go  before  or  follow  after."  But  it  is  added,  that 
*'the  promise,"  that  is,  the  promise  of  gratuitous  justification, 
*'  detracteth  nothing  from  good  works,  yea,  it  doth  stir  up  men 
unto  faith,  and  unto  true  good  works."  — Again.  "  When  we  say 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  just  for 
the  worthiness  of  that  virtue,  but  —  that  we  obtain  remission  of 
sins  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness  by  mercy  showed  us  for 
Christ's  sake.  But  this  mercy  cannot  be  received  but  by  faith.'* 
Further.  "  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  do  not  disagree.  For  where 
James  saith,  the  devils  believe  and  tremble,  he  speaketh  of  a  his- 
torical faith.  Now  this  faith  doth  not  justify.  —  Whereas,  when 
we  teach  in  our  churches  the  most  necessary  doctrine  and  comfort 
of  faith,  we  join  therewith  the  doctrine  of  good  works,  to  wit,  that 
obedience  to  the  law  of  God  is  requisite  in  them  that  are  recon- 
ciled. For  the  gospel  preacheth  newness  of  life,  according  to 
that  saying,  /  will  put  my  laws  in  their  hearts.  —  And  thus 
■we  must  judge  that  good  works  are  necessary,  that  they  are  are 
service  of  God,  and  spiritual  sacrifices,  and  that  they  deserve  a 
reward." 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were  agreed 
upon  by  the  Archbishops,  Bishops  and  clergy  of  England  and  Ire- 


JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES.  217 

land,  in  the  year  1562,  and  were  adopted  as  the  Faith  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  in  the  year 
1801.  The  following  quotations  are  sufficient  for  the  present  pur- 
pose. 

"  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only  for  the  merit  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith ;  and  not  for  our  own  works  or 
deservings."  —  "  Albeit  that  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of 
faith,  and  follow  after  justification,  cannot  put  away  our  sins  and 
endure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment,  yet  are  they  pleasing 
and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ,  and  do  spring  out  necessarily 
of  a  true  and  lively  faith  ;  insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively 
faith  may  be  as  evidently  known,  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by  the. 
fruit." 

The  Westminster  Confession,  which  treats  the  subject  of  justi- 
fication, faith  and  works  more  clearly  and  fully,  was  drawn  up 
by  an  assembly  of  divines  convened  at  Westminster,  1643,  and 
approved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of  Scotland, 
1645.  It  was  acknowledo-ed  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
New  England  churches  by  the  Synod  of  Cambridge,  1648.  It  is 
also  received  by  the  several  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  the  United  States. 

"  Those  whom  God  eflFectually  calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth  ; 
not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardoning  their 
sins,  and  by  accounting  and  accepting  their  persons  as  right- 
eous :  not  for  anything  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but 
for  Christ's  sake  alone  ;  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act 
of  believing,  or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as 
their  righteousness,  but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  tmto  them,  they  receiving  and  resting  on  him  and 
his  righteousness  by  faith."  —  "  Faith,  thus  receiving  and  rest- 
ing on  Christ  and  his  righteousness,  is  the  alone  instrument  of 
justification ;  yet  it  is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is 
ever  accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead 
faith,  but  worketh  by  love."  —  "  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and 
death,  did  fully  discharge  the  debt  of  all  those  that  are  thus 
justified,  and  did  make  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to 

VOL.  in.  19 


218  JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES. 

his  Father's  justice  in  their  behalf.  Yet  inasmuch  as  he  was 
given  of  the  Father  for  them,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction 
accepted  in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  anything  in 
them,  their  justification  is  only  of  free  grace."  —  "By  this 
faith,"  (saving  faith)  "  a  Christian  belie veth  to  be  true  what- 
soever is  revealed  in  the  word  —  and  acteth  differently  upon 
that  which  each  particular  passage  thereof  containeth,  yield- 
ing obedience  to  the  commands,  trembling  at  the  threatenings, 
and  embracing  the  promises  of  God  for  this  life  and  that  which 
is  to  come.  But  the  principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  ac- 
cepting, receiving  and  resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  justifica- 
tion, sanctification  and  eternal  life." — "Good  works  are  only 
such  as  God  has  commanded  in  his  holy  word,  and  not  such 
as  without  any  warrant  thereof  are  devised  by  men.  —  These 
good  works,  done  in  obedience  to  God's  commands,  are  the 
fruits  and  evidences  of  a  true  and  lively  faith  ;  and  by  them  be- 
lievers manifest  their  thankfulness,  strengthen  their  assurance, 
edify  their  brethren,  adorn  the  profession  of  the  gospel,  stop 
the  mouths  of  adversaries,  and  glorify  God,  whose  workman- 
ship they  are,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  thereunto,  that,  hav- 
ing their  fruit  unto  holiness,  they  may  have  the  end,  eternal 
Hfe." 

The  Savoy  Confession  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Elders  and 
Messengers  of  the  Congregational  churches  in  England,  at  their 
meeting  at  Savoy,  1658,  and  was  approved  by  the  Synod  of 
the  Congregational  churches  in  Massachusetts,  1680,  and  by 
the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  churches  in  Connecticut,  as- 
sembled at  Sa}- brook,  1708.  This  Confession  is  the  same  as 
the  Westminster  Confession,  excepting  a  few  slight  variations 
in  the  expressions,  which  affect  not  the  doctrine.  Indeed  no 
one,  without  a  very  careful  comparison,  would  perceive  any  dif- 
ference. 

On  the  subject  of  justification  and  good  works,  the  Helvetic, 
the  French,  the  Belgic,  the  Bohemian,  the  Baptist,  and  the  Meth- 
odist Confessions  all  agree  with  the  Presbyterian  and  Episco- 
pahan   Confessions   as  above  quoted.      And  if  any  one  wishes 


JUSTIFICATION.      PAUL    AND    JAMES.  219 

to  know  more  particularly  how  totally  groundless  and  false  is 
any  allegation  against  the  orthodox  churches  of  Protestant 
Christendom  in  regard  to  the  theory  or  practice  of  good  works, 
let  him  peruse  the  writings  of  the  most  distinguished  Protest- 
ant  divines,  from    Melancthon    and    Calvin    to    Edwards    and 


Dwight. 


LECTURE     CIV 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   SAINTS     PERSEVERANCE   STATED  AND 

PROVED. 

Every  doctrine  of  Scripture,  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
inspired  writers  intended  to  teach  it,  bears  the  stamp  of  divine 
truth  and  divine  authority,  and  is  adapted  to  produce  a  salutary 
effect  upon  those  who  beheve  it.  But  any  doctrine  of  revelation 
may  be  so  misapprehended,  as  to  have  the  nature  and  influence  of 
error.  And  this  misapprehension  often  arises  from  the  circum- 
stance that  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  contemplated  and  believed 
alone,  its  relation  to  other  truths  being  overlooked.  A  regard  to 
that  relation  is  always  important,  and  often  indispensable  to  a  right 
understanding  of  a  doctrine.  But  the  modification  which  a  doc- 
trine receives  from  its  connection  with  other  doctrines  is  seldom 
set  forth  in  express  terms  in  the  word  of  God,  and  is  not  generally 
considered  as  it  should  be,  by  those  who  believe  in  revelation.  It 
becomes  then  an  important  inquiry,  how  this  great  evil  is  to  be 
avoided.  The  answer  is  obvious.  Scripture  teaches  not  only  the 
particular  doctrine  which  we  at  any  time  consider,  but  all  the 
other  doctrines  to  which  it  bears  a  relation.  It  devolves  then 
upon  us  as  our  duty,  to  receive  with  a  simple,  child-like  faith, 
each  doctrine  and  all  the  doctrines  taught  in  Scripture,  —  to  give 
them  all  a  place  in  our  understandings  and  our  hearts.  When 
the  doctrines  of  revelation  are  thus  received  and  held  by  an  in- 
telligent and  devout  Christian,  they  will  be  hkely,  without  any 
labor  of  philosophy  or  logic  on  his  part,  to  adjust  themselves  prop- 
erly in  his  mind,  and,  perhaps  in  a  way  of  which  he  is  not  partic- 


PERSEVERANCE    OP    SAINTS.  221 

ularly  aware,  to  give  to  themselves  and  to  each  other  the  very 
modification  required.  An  enlightened  and  comprehensive  faith 
has  an  efficacy  to  prevent  misapprehension.  Where  such  a  faith 
exists,  the  truth  of  each  doctrine  is  clearly  seen,  because  other 
related  doctrines  are  seen  in  their  proper  connection  with  it.  In 
proportion  as  the  spirit  of  faith  is  exercised,  the  various  doctrines 
of  revelation  will  stand  before  the  mind,  each  in  its  own  light  and 
also  in  the  hght  reflected  upon  it  from  the  others ;  while  all  to- 
gether will  exert  a  hannonious  and  happy  moral  influence.  And 
this  freedom  from  misconception  and  this  sanctifying  influence  of 
the  various  truths  of  Scripture  in  the  minds  of  believers  is  owing, 
as  I  have  suggested,  not  to  any  laborious  intellectual  process,  but 
to  a  serious,  earnest  searching  of  the  word  of  God,  and  to  the 
acting  of  a  simple,  child-like  faith. 

My  present  object  is,  to  give  a  statement  and  explanation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Saints^  Perseverance ;  to  present  the  evidence  of 
its  truth  ;  to  obviate  objections  against  it ;  and  to  notice  its  practi- 
cal uses. 

The  statement  we  give  of  the  doctrine  should  not  be  embar- 
rassed with  any  matters  which  do  not  essentially  belong  to  it.  For 
example ;  it  would  be  improper  to  represent  the  doctrine  to  be 
this ;  that  every  regenerate  person  will  certainly  be  preserved 
from  all  habits  and  all  wilful  acts  of  sin,  and  will  continually  go 
forward  in  the  way  of  obedience  till  he  reaches  heaven.  For  both 
Scripture  and  experience  show,  that  real  believers  are  often  in- 
terrupted in  their  obedience  ;  that  they  are  prone  to  backslide  ; 
that  they  have  wrong  habits  of  feeling  and  action  ;  that  they  often 
and  sometimes  wilfully  commit  sin,  and  always,  in  this  life,  fall 
short  of  perfect  conformity  with  the  divine  law.  Nor  is  it  neces- 
sary in  stating  the  doctrine,  to  say,  that  believers  are  never  en- 
tirely destitute  of  the  exercise  of  hohness.  Such  a  declaration, 
to  say  the  least,  would  be  contrary  to  appearances,  and  to  the 
consciousness  of  Christians.  And,  considering  the  ambiguity  of 
language,  it  would  be  inexpedient  and  unsafe  to  say,  without  ex- 
planation, that  real  Christians  have  no  power  to  apostatize  —  that 
they  cannot  fall  away  and  perish.     For  in  an  obvious  and  impar- 

19* 


221SI  PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS. 

tant  sense,  it  is  not  only  true  that  they  have  iwiver  to  apostatize, 
and  can  fall  away  and  perish,  but  that,  in  themselves  considered, 
they  are  in  the  utmost  danger  of  doing  it.  So  the  Synod  of  Dort 
express  it :  "  Because  of  the  remains  of  indwelling  sin  and  the 
temptations  Of  the  world  and  of  Satan,  the  converted  could  not 
continue  in  this  grace,  if  they  were  left  to  their  own  strength." 
Again  they  say, "  Not  by  their  own  merits  or  strength,  but  by  the 
gratuitous  mercy  of  God,  they  obtain  it,  that  they  neither  totally 
fall  from  faith  and  grace,  nor  finally  continue  in  their  falls  and 
perish ;  which,  so  far  as  they  themselves  are  concerned,  not  only 
might  easily  be  done,  but  would  undoubtedly  be  done  ;  while, 
in  respect  to  Crod,  it  cannot  be  done,  as  his  counsel  cannot  be 
changed,  nor  his  promise  fail,  nor  their  vocation  according  to  his 
purpose  be  rendered  void,  nor  the  sealing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be- 
come vain,  or  be  obliterated."  Our  doctrine  then  imphes,  that 
if  believers  sin,  as  they  often  do,  they  will  repent ;  that  is,  that 
they  will  not  sin  impenitently,  as  others  do  ;  that  if  they  back- 
slide, they  will  be  restored  ;  that  if  amid  the  pollutions  of  the 
world  they  are  polluted,  they  will  be  purified  ;  that  if  they  depart 
from  the  way  of  holiness,  they  will  return  to  it.  Thus,  according 
to  the  doctrine,  they  will  be  preserved  from  all  fatal  dangers. 
"IDiough  in  themselves  inconstant,  and  weak,  and  prone  to  trans- 
gress, they  will  be  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto 
salvation.  The  doctrine,  as  now  explained,  is  the  statement  of 
the  important  fact,  that  all  the  regenerate  will  finally  persevere  in 
faith  and  obedience,  and  attain  to  eternal  life. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  proof  of  the  doctrine. 

My  first  inquiry  is,  whether  the  doctrine  can  be  conclusively 
proved  from  tlie  nature  of  holiness  in  those  who  are  renewed.  My 
reply  is  this.  If  the  nature  of  holiness  in  a  moral  agent,  would, 
by  itself,  certainly  secure  its  perpetual  continuance,  then  no  holy 
being  would  ever  fall  into  sin.  But  we  know  that  both  angelic 
and  human  beings  have  fallen  from  a  state  of  holiness  to  a  state 
of  sin.  These  facts  show  what  is  also  e\ndent  from  other  consid- 
erations, that  holiness,  existing  in  created  beings,  does  not,  by 
itself,  involve  the  certainty  of  its  continuance.     No  being  but  God 


PERSEVERANCE     OF     SAINTS.  223 

is  absolutely  immutable.  Dependent  beings,  particularly  those 
who  are  in  a  state  of  probation,  are  in  themselves  liable  to  change. 
Though  they  are  holy  to-day,  yet,  unless  sustained  by  divine 
power,  they  may  become  unholy  to-morrow. 

But  although  the  nature  of  hohness  in  dependent  beings,  con- 
sidered by  itself,  would  not  certainly  prove  that  it  will  be  perpetu- 
ated ;  yet  a  presumptive  argument  in  favor  of  this  conclusion  may 
be  derived  from  the  peculiar  eircumstances  of  the  case  in  redeem- 
ed sinners.  A  great  and  marvellous  work  has  been  accomplished 
in  order  to  bring  about  their  renewal.  God  has  sent  his  Son  to 
die  for  them,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  their  salvation.  He  has 
caused  them  to  hear  the  glad  tidings,  and  by  his  Spirit  inclined 
them  to  accept  the  oflfered  Saviour.  These  gracious  proceedings, 
these  acts  of  a  Redeeming  God,  opening  the  way  for  their  salva- 
tion, and  beginning  the  work  of  salvation  in  their  hearts,  clearly 
indicate  his  merciful  purpose  to  give  them  eternal  life,  and  so  may 
be  regarded  as  evidence  of  no  small  weight,  that  they  will  be  pre- 
served from  final  apostasy,  and  will  attain  to  eternal  life.  This 
evidence,  you  observe,  does  not  arise  from  the  mere  nature  of 
hohness,  but  from  those  circumstances  of  the  case  which  indicate 
God's  purpose  to  save  the  regenerate. 

Can  then  the  certain  perseverance  of  all  who  are  regenerated 
be  proved  from  the  doctrine  of  election  ?  I  reply  ;  that  this  doctrine 
clearly  proves  the  final  perseverance  of  all  who  are  regenerated, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  some  are  regenerated  who  are  not 
elected  to  salvation.  But  this  would  be  a  hopeless  undertaking. 
For  it  is  the  representation  of  Scripture,  that  when  God  calls  men 
with  a  holy  calling,  he  does  it  in  execution  of  his  eternal  purpose 
to  save  ;  that  conversion  or  faith  is  the  commencement  of  eternal 
life  ;  and  that  all  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose,  are 
justified  and  glorified.  If  the  doctrine  of  election  proves  the 
final  salvation  of  any  behevers,  it  proves  the  salvation  of  all  be- 
lievers. 

Again,  I  inquire,  whether  the  perseverance  of  behevers  can  be 
certainly  inferred  from  the  bare  consideration  of  the  benevolence, 
Oie  power ^  and  the  immutability  of  God.      Now  it  seems  to  me 


224  PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS. 

that  any  attempt  to  prove  the  certain  perseverance  of  believers 
from  the  attributes  of  God,  considered  as  separate  from  the  instruc- 
tions of  his  word,  would  involve  us  in  the  difficulties  to  which  we 
are  always  exposed  when  we  venture  upon  such  a  mode  of  reason- 
ing. We  can  safely  conclude,  that  a  Being,  possessed  of  infinite 
perfections,  will  certainly  do  what  is  right.  But  in  regard  to 
many  subjects,  and  particularly  the  present  subject,  we  should 
be  unable  by  our  own  reason  to  determine  what  is  right ;  and 
hence  we  should  be  utterly  unable  to  determine  in  what  particular 
manner  God  will  manifest  his  perfections,  except  so  far  as  he 
himself  should  give  us  information.  If  we  were  uninstructed  by 
his  word  and  by  the  history  of  facts,  we  should  be  much  inchned 
to  think,  that  God  would  preserve  all  holy  beings  in  a  state  of 
rectitude.  But  this  would  be  a  mistake.  Reasoning  in  the  same 
way,  we  should  think  it  exceedingly  probable,  if  not  certain,  that 
God,  in  the  exercise  of  his  infinite  power  and  goodness,  would 
bring  all  mankind  to  enjoy  the  precious  blessings  of  salvation. 
But  we  know  the  fact,  that  the  means  of  salvation  are  given  only 
to  a  part  of  mankind,  and  that  a  great  multitude  of  those  who  en- 
joy these  means,  will  perish  in  their  sins.  It  becomes  us  there- 
fore to  avoid  conjectures,  to  distrust  abstract  arguments,  to  re- 
member the  weakness  and  fallibiUty  of  human  reason,  and  to 
regulate  our  faith,  especially  on  the  subject  now  before  us,  by  the 
teachings  of  the  inspired  writers.  If  they  inform  us  that  God 
will  preserve  all  behevers  from  final  apostasy,  we  then  have  a 
firm  basis  on  which  to  rest  our  behef  in  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration. 

Once  more.  Can  the  final  salvation  of  all  believers  be  certain- 
ly proved  from  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  promise  salva- 
tion to  those  who  endure  to  the  end — in  other  words,  which 
promise  eternal  life  on  condition  of  persevering  obedience  ?  I 
answer ;  we  cannot  be  sure  of  their  eternal  life,  unless  we  can 
be  sure  that  they  will  fulfil  the  condition  on  which  it  is  promised. 
There  are  absolute  promises,  and  there  are  conditional  promises. 
An  absolute  promise  from  God,  that  he  will  preserve  and  save  all 
who  are  renewed  by  his  Spirit,  is  itself  conclusive  evidence  that 


PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS.  225 

they  will  be  saved.  But  if  a  condition  is  introduced,  we  cannot 
know  that  the  good  promised  will  be  bestowed,  unless  we  know 
that  the  condition  will  be  complied  with. 

I  ask  now,  what  may  reasonably  be  demanded  as  the  ground 
of  a  confident  belief  in  the  doctrine  before  us  ?  The  doctrine 
may  be  stated  in  two  ways.  First.  All  true  beUevers  will  per- 
severe in  holiness,  so  as  to  obtain  eternal  Hfe.  The  doctrine 
stated  in  this  way,  points  out  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  may 
properly  be  called  the  doctrine  of  the  saints'  perseverance.  And 
the  evidence  requisite  to  prove  the  doctrine  in  this  form,  is  a  plain 
declaration  from  Scripture  that  they  will  persevere.  Secondly ; 
■the  doctrine  may  be  stated  thus  ;  that  God  will  preserve  all  true 
behevers  from  fatal  apostasy,  and  finally  save  them  in  his  king- 
dom. Presented  in  this  form,  the  doctrine  may,  with  more  exact 
propriety,  be  called  the  doctrine  of  believers'  conservation  or  pre- 
servation.  And  here  the  proof  must  consist  in  a  declaration  of 
God,  that  he  will  thus  preserve  and  save  them.  But  in  making 
out  the  proof  of  the  doctrine,  there  will  be  no  occasion  to  observe 
this  distinction.  For  the  texts  which  prove  that  God  will  preserve 
the  saints,  prove  also  that  they  will  persevere  in  hoUness  ;  as  the 
very  thing  which  God  does  is  preserving  them  in  a  state  of  perse- 
vering holiness,  or  causing  them  to  persevere.  And  those  texts 
which  prove  that  they  will  persevere,  do  virtually  prove  that  God 
will  preserve  them  ;  for  they  will  persevere  in  no  other  way  than 
as  they  are  divinely  preserved. 

Here  it  is  obvious,  that  the  texts  which  set  forth  the  promise  of 
God  that  he  will  preserve  believers,  are  not  conclusive  proofs  of 
the  doctrine,  except  on  the  principle  that  he  has  power  so  to 
direct  and  control  their  moral  faculties  and  moral  actions,  as  to 
secure  their  perseverance.  For  what  would  his  promise  to  pre- 
serve them  avail,  unless  he  is  able,  notwithstanding  all  the  disor- 
ders of  their  understandings  and  hearts,  to  carry  his  promise  into 
execution  ?  Believers  are  said  to  be  "  kept  by  the  power  of 
God,"  sometimes  called  his  "  mighty  power,"  "  through  faith  unto 
salvation."  The  imphcation  plainly  is,  that  he  possesses  power 
suflScient  for  this  work  —  that  how  great  soever  the  number  and 


226  PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS. 

strength  of  their  enemies,  and  how  fearful  soever  the  perils  of 
their  condition,  from  within  as  well  as  from  without,  he  is  able  to 
protect  and  deliver  them.  We  need  not  inquire  in  what  particular 
manner  he  exercises  his  power  in  this  work.  But  that  he  actually 
possesses  and  exercises  a  sovereign,  controlling  power  over  all  the 
springs  of  action  in  his  creatures,  and  over  all  the  influences 
which  can  bear  upon  them,  and  that  he  exercises  this  power  with 
perfect  ease,  and  without  superseding  or  interrupting  in  the  least 
degree  their  free  moral  agency  and  accountability,  is  made  ex- 
ceedingly clear  from  the  word  and  providence  of  God,  and  from 
their  own  consciousness.  Any  one  who  is  conversant  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures  must  see,  that  the  writers  everywhere  proceed 
on  the  assumption,  that  Grod  can  direct  and  overrule  the  hearts, 
the  wills,  and  actions  of  men,  and  all  their  afiairs,  and  that  no 
idea  different  from  this  ever  entered  their  minds.  We  shall,  then, 
consider  this  principle  to  be  presupposed  in  all  the  arguments  we 
derive  from  the  declarations  and  promises  of  God,  that  he  will 
preserve  and  finally  save  behevers  —  such  declarations  having  no 
title  to  our  confidence  on  any  other  ground  than  this,  that  God  is 
both  able  and  disposed  to  carry  his  declarations  into  effect. 

The  important  truth,  that  God  will  exercise  a  gracious  care 
over  his  children,  and  will  keep  them  from  fatal  dangers,  is  often 
set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  foundation  of  hope  and 
encouragement.  See  Ps.  37:  23,  24,  "  The  steps  of  a  good  man 
are  ordered  by  the  Lord.  Though  he  fall,  he  shall  not  be  utterly 
cast  down  ;  for  the  Lord  upholdeth  him  with  his  hand."  Isa.  54: 
10,  "  For  the  mountains  shall  depart  and  the  hills  be  removed, 
but  my  kindness  shall  not  depart  from  thee,  neither  shall  the  cove- 
nant of  my  peace  be  removed,  saith  the  Lord  that  hath  mercy  on 
thee."  Jerem.  32:  40,  "  I  will  make  an  everlasting  covenant 
with  them,  that  I  will  not  turn  away  from  them  to  do  them  good." 
It  may  be  said  that  God  promises  this  favor  to  his  people,  on  the 
condition,  sometimes  expressed  and  always  implied,  that  they  do 
not  depart  from  him.  This  I  admit.  But  in  the  closing  part  of 
the  very  sentence  last  referred  to,  he  promises  to  secure  the  fulfil- 
ment of  this  condition.  "  I  will  put  my  fear  in  their  hearts,  tho^ 
they  shall  not  depart  from  me." 


PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS.  227 

Passages  pertinent  to  the  subject  are  found  in  various  parts  of 
the  New  Testament.  Begin  with  John  3:  36,  "  He  that  behev- 
eth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life  "  —  hath  it  now.  It  is  a  mode  of 
expression  often  used  in  Scripture,  to  denote  the  certainty  of  the 
event  foretold.  John  5:  24  is  still  stronger :  "  He  that  heareth 
my  word  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life, 
and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death 
unto  life."  "  He  hath  everlasting  life  ;  "  the  present  tense  again. 
It  is  as  much  as  to  say,  he  is  already  saved  —  the  thing  is  done. 
How  could  such  language  be  used,  if  there  were  any  uncertainty 
as  to  the  event  predicted  ? 

John  6:  39,  40,  and  54,  "  This  is  the  Father's  will,  who  hath 
sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing, 
but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  that  every  one  who  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on 
him,  should  have  everlasting  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day.  *  *  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
hath  everlasting  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." 
Again,  John  10:  27 — 29,  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know 
them,  and  they  follow  me ;  and  I  will  give  unto  them  eternal  life, 
and  thet/  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  one  pluck  them  out 
of  my  hand.  My  Father  is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  one  is  able 
to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand."  What  greater  certainty 
could  there  be  of  the  present  security  and  the  final  salvation  of 
behevers  ?  In  Rom,  8:  30,  38,  39,  the  Apostle  expresses  his 
joyful  and  elevated  feelings  in  view  of  the  certain  perseverance 
and  final  glory  of  the  followers  of  Christ :  "  Whom  he  did  predes- 
tinate, them  he  also  called.  And  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified.  And  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified.  *  * 
For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither  death  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor 
principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor 
height  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate 
us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  It 
would  be  very  frigid  to  understand  the  Apostle  as  saying,  that 
none  of  these  things  can  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  or  pre- 
vent our  obtaining  salvation,  if  tve  are  faithful,  and  take  care  of 


228  PERSEVERANCE    OP    SAINTS. 

ourselves.  For  such  is  the  corruption  of  our  hearts,  the  deceit- 
fulness  of  sin,  and  the  power  of  temptation,  that,  if  we  were  left 
to  ourselves,  we  should  certainly  fall  away  and  perish.  We  need, 
then,  a  higher  consolation  than  to  be  told,  that  we  shall  attain  to 
the  heavenly  rest,  if  we  are  faithful  to  our  own  souls  —  that 
nothing  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  if  we  do  not  sepa- 
rate ourselves.  For  if  God,  in  the  fulness  of  his  mercy,  has  not 
secured  a  sanctifying  influence  for  his  children  —  if  Christ  does 
not,  by  his  invincible  agency,  effectually  redeem  us  from  the  power 
of  sin  —  if  he  does  not  subdue  that  subtle  foe,  a  corrupt  heart 
within  us,  and  carry  on  his  own  work  of  grace  to  a  successful 
issue  —  we  shall  make  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  and  perish  with  the 
wicked  world.  But  the  Apostle's  language  is  not  that  of  conjec- 
ture, or  probability,  or  conditionality,  but  of  certainty  and  exulta- 
tion. He  says,  and  says  very  strongly,  that  nothing  in  the 
universe  can  deprive  those  who  are  effectually  called,  of  the  ever- 
lasting benefits  of  God's  love.  This  joyful  confidence  is  exhibited 
very  clearly,  but  in  another  form,  Rom.  5:  9,  10,  "  God  com- 
mended his  love  to  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ 
died  for  us."  Then,  in  the  way  of  a  divine  inference,  he  adds : 
"  Much  more,  then,  being  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  he 
saved  from  wrath  through  him.''''  The  Apostle  does  not  stop  even 
with  this,  but  goes  on  to  repeat  his  divine  logic :  "For  if,  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son  ;  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  he  saved  hy  his  life.'' 
The  argument  is  perfectly  clear  and  conclusive.  If  Christ  has 
accomplished  the  more  wonderful  and  difficult  work  for  us,  how 
much  more  certainly  may  we  expect  him  to  accomplish  what 
remains.  How  could  the  Apostle  write  such  a  passage,  and 
in  such  a  connection,  unless  he  believed  that  the  almighty  Re- 
deemer would  himself  preserve  every  one  of  his  people  from 
final  apostasy,  and  give  them  a  crown  of  glory  in  his  kingtlom  ? 
It  seems  impossible  for  any  language  to  express  this  welcome 
truth  more  plainly  or  more  forcibly  than  that  which  I  have 
quoted.  In  this  passage,  and  in  John  10:  27 — 29,  above  cited, 
and  in  other  places,  the  certain  preservation  of  the  saints  is  repre- 


PERSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS.  229 

sented  as  depending  on  the  mercy  and  the  omnipotence  of  God. 
The  conclusion  is,  that  if  God  has  power  and  mercy  adequate  to 
the  work,  he  will  preserve  believers,  and  give  them  a  place  at  his 
right  hand.  In  1  Cor.  10:  13,  their  safety  is  made  to  depend  on 
God's  faithfulness  :  "  God  is  faithful,  who  will  not  suffer  you  to 
be  tempted  above  that  ye  are  able  ;  but  will,  with  the  temptation, 
also  make  a  way  to  escape,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  bear  it."  The 
Apostle  Paul  unhesitatingly  expresses  his  confidence  in  the  truth 
of  our  doctrine,  in  Philip.  1:  6.  "Being  confident" — he  does 
not  say  the  thing  would  take  place  prohably,  or  on  some  precarious 
condition  —  but  "  being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  who 
hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you,  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of 
Christ.'^  The  original  word  here  rendered  perform,  signifies  to 
finish — to  carry  through  to  an  end.  The  Apostle  was  confident 
that  God,  who  had  begun  the  work  of  sanctification  in  the  Phi- 
lippian  Christians,  would  finish  it  —  would  carry  it  on  to  its  comr 
pletion. 

Peter  unites  with  Paul,  in  representing  the  preservation  and 
ultimate  salvation  of  believers  as  secured  by  divine  power.  He 
says,  they  "  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto 
salvation^  The  work  might  fail  of  being  accomplished,  if  it 
depended  on  the  power  of  created  beings.  But  as  its  accomplish- 
ment depends  on  the  divine  omnipotence,  it  cannot  fail. 

The  persevering  hohness  and  final  salvation  of  believers  is  ren- 
dered certain  by  the  intercession  of  Christ.  How  explicit  and 
earnest  was  his  prayer  for  his  people  :  "  Keep  through  thine  own 
name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me."  "  Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth."  And  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  places  the  salvation 
of  those  who  believe  in  close  connection  with  the  power  and  inter- 
cession of  our  ever-living  Saviour.  Heb.  7:  25,  "  Wherefore 
he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost,  who  come  unto  God 
by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them."  If, 
then,  any  true  saints  fall  away  and  perish,  it  must  be  because 
Christ  is  not  able  to  save  them,  and  because  his  intercession  does 
not  prevail. 

I  might  argue  also,  from  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  set 

VOL.  III.  20 


230  PEKSEVERANCE    OF    SAINTS. 

forth  in  2  Cor.  1:  21,  "  Now  he  that  establisheth  us  with  you, 
and  hath  anointed  us,  is  God,  who  hath  also  sealed  us  and 
given  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit."  In  Ephes.  1:  13,  14,  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  behevers  as  ha\ang  the  seal  of  the  Spirit,  which 
is  the  earnest  of  their  future  inheritance.  The  sanctifying  work 
of  the  Spirit  in  believers  is  the  sure  pledge  and  forerunner  of  their 
final  salvation. 

There  is  a  great  variety  of  texts,  besides  those  above  cited, 
which  furnish  support  to  our  doctrine.  But  it.  is  unnecessary  to 
produce  them.  For  no  language  of  inspired  or  uninspired  writ- 
ings could  declare  the  doctrine  more  vmequivocally,  than  the  lan- 
guage already  cited.     If  this  does  not  teach  it,  nothing  can. 


LECTURE     CV. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE  DOCTRINE.     ITS   USES. 

We  shall  now  examine  the  arguments  -which  our  opponents  use 
to  invalidate  the  doctrine  of  the  saints'  perseverance. 

In  the  first  place,  they  speak  of  the  texts  which  promise  final 
salvation  conditionally;  such  as  those  which  declare  that  they 
■who  are  faithful  unto  death  shall  receive  the  crown  of  life,  and 
that  they  Avho  endure  to  the  end  shall  be  saved.  Now  what  I 
have  to  say  on  this  point  is  this ;  that  the  passages  in  which  salva- 
tion is  promised  on  the  expressed  or  implied  condition  of  perseve- 
ring faith  and  obedience,  teach  a  truth  which  is  of  great  prac- 
tical importance,  and  which  ought  to  be  plainly  declared  and 
often  insisted  upon.  But  they  do  not  teach  the  whole  truth. 
This  portion  of  Scripture  is  necessary  ;  but  other  portions  are 
also  necessary.  The  same  inspired  volume  which  declares  that 
behevers  shall  be  saved  if  they  endure  to  the  end,  goes  further, 
and  declares  that  they  shall  endure.  Here  is  an  additional  truth, 
which  is  suited  to  honor  God  and  to  animate  and  comfort  his 
people.  The  condition  referred  to  has  relation  to  us  as  rational, 
moral  beings,  and  is  rendered  indispensable  by  the  character  of 
God  and  by  the  nature  of  salvation.  What  Scripture  does  is, 
not  to  set  this  condition  aside,  but  to  inform  us  that,  through  the 
grace  of  God,  it  toill  he  fulfilled.  And  what  reason  has  any  one 
to  say,  that  a  condition  is  interfered  with  by  the  certainty  of  its 
fulfilment,  or  that  the  previous  certainty  of  its  fulfilment,  and  the 
knowledge  of  that  certainty,  is  inconsistent  with  the  existence 


232  PERSEVERANCE. 

r 

and  the  beneficial  influence  of  the  condition  ?  We  maintain,  in 
common  with  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  under  consideration, 
that  persevering  faith  and  obedience  is  an  indispensable  condition 
of  the  final  salvation  of  the  regenerate.  In  regard  to  this  point, 
we  have  no  controversy  with  our  opponents.  The  question 
between  us  is,  whether,  according  to  Scripture,  God  will  so  influ- 
ence beUevers  that  they  will  in  fact  persevere,  and  thus  fulfil 
the  condition  on  which  eternal  life  is  promised  ?  The  arguments 
which  prove  that  they  will  persevere  have  been  briefly  stated. 
These  two  things  —  the  conditional  promise,  and  the  absolute 
promise  that  the  condition  shall  be  accomplished  —  exist  together, 
and  both  contribute  important  aid  to  believers,  and  the  very  aid 
which  they  need  in  the  great  work  to  which  they  are  called. 
Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  could  be  omitted  in  the  word  of 
God,  without  essential  injury  to  their  spiritual  interest.  And 
those  Christians  who  seem  to  give  up  either  the  one  or  the 
other,  do  still,  in  some  way,  practically  avail  themselves  of  both. 

The  coexistence  of  these  two  things,  and  the  importance  and 
necessary  influence  of  the  conditionality  of  an  event  in  connection 
with  its  certainty,  are  happily  illustrated  by  what  occurred  during 
Paul's  voyage  to  Rome.  It  was  supernaturally  revealed  to  Paul, 
and  by  him  made  known  for  the  encouragement  of  the  men  in  the 
ship,  that  notwithstanding  the  dangers  which  they  were  to  en- 
counter, their  lives  should  all  be  preserved.  But  by  and  by 
when  dangers  alarmed  them,  they  proposed,  as  a  means  of  safety, 
to  leave  the  ship.  Then  came  in  the  necessary  condition  of  their 
safety :  "  Except  these  abide  in  the  ship,"  said  Paul,  "  ye  cannot 
be  saved."  They  could  not  be  saved  without  complying  with  this 
condition ;  and  yet  their  safety  had  been  made  known  to  Paul, 
and  to  the  Centurion  and  the  mariners,  as  an  ultimate  certainty. 
And  it  is  plain,  that  Paul's  insisting  upon  the  condition  at  the 
exact  time  when  it  was  called  for,  proved  the  eflectual  means  of 
securing  the  preservation  which  the  angel  had  revealed  as  a  cer- 
tainty. Dr.  Whately,  who  makes  a  good  use  of  this  case,  says,  I 
think  incautiously,  "  that  the  Apostle  regarded  the  assurance 
given  him  of  the  safety  of  all  in  the  ship  as  grounded  on  the  sup- 


PERSEVERANCE.  233 

position,  that  he  should  employ  the  proper  means  of  safety." 
But  there  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  to  warrant  this.  The  Apos- 
tle regarded  the  event  as  certain,  merely  because  it  was  declared 
to  him  by  an  infallible  messenger.  This  divine  communication, 
and  this  alone,  was  the  ground  of  Paul's  persuasion  that  they 
should  all  be  preserved.  Whether  he  thought  of  any  means  to  be 
used,  or  not,  he  confidently  believed  the  fact  revealed  to  him. 
But  it  was  true,  that  proper  means  would  be  employed.  The 
accomplishment  of  the  promised  event  required  this  —  required 
the  very  means  which  were  made  use  of.  The  certainty  of  that 
event  was  one  thing  ;  the  means  used  for  its  accomplishment  was 
another  thing.  There  is  no  need  of  abstract  reasoning  to  recon- 
cile them.  Common  sense,  whether  in  the  philosopher  or  the 
child,  sees  that  they  consist  together.  And  it  is,  moreover,  evident, 
that  a  sure  expectation  of  obtaining  the  good  which  we  desire,  will 
naturally  lead  us  to  use  the  proper  means  of  obtaining  it.  And 
we  shall  be  likely  to  use  the  means  with  spirit,  in  proportion  to 
the  assurance  we  feel  of  ultimate  success.  This  principle,  rightly 
apprehended  and  applied,  is  sufficient  to  obviate  the  most  plausible 
objection  ever  made  against  our  doctrine  —  the  objection  from  its 
alleged  bad  influence.  This  we  shall  particularly  consider  in  its 
proper  place. 

The  case  of  the  mariners  above  explained  admits  of  an  easy 
application  to  the  perseverance  of  the  saints.  The  certainty  of 
the  final  salvation  of  believers  is  a  matter  of  fact  clearly  revealed 
in  the  word  of  God.  And  it  is  also  revealed,  that  in  order  to 
reach  that  salvation  they  must  persevere  in  obedience.  This  is 
laid  down  as  an  indispensable  condition.  Now  this  condition, 
considered  merely  by  itself,  would  imply  a  real  uncertainty  in 
regard  to  their  salvation.  Yea,  if  they  were  to  be  left  to  them- 
selves, there  would  be  something  more  than  this  uncertainty  ;  for 
they  would  actually  fall  short  of  heaven.  But  here  comes  in 
their  security.  God  has  promised  to  keep  them,  through  faith 
unto  salvation ;  and  his  promise  cannot  fail.  Through  the 
help  of  his  grace,  then,  believers  will  certainly  persevere  in 
holiness,   and    obtain    eternal    life.      Thus,    according    to    the 

20* 


234  PERSEVERANCE. 

Scriptures,  the  final  salvation  of  believers  is  both  conditional 
and  certain.  These  two  things,  —  the  conditionalitj  and  the  cer- 
tainty of  their  salvation,  —  united  together,  are  adapted  to  pro- 
duce the  best  possible  effects.  If  the  absolute  certainty  of  their 
final  salvation  were  the  only  thing  revealed,  they  might  be  exposed 
to  a  sinful  confidence  and  a  fatal  indolence.  Or  if  they  were  dis- 
posed to  be  active,  they  would  not  know  what  to  do.  But  as  the 
necessary  condition  of  salvation  is  also  clearly  revealed,  they 
know  exactly  what  to  do,  and  why  they  must  do  it.  The  infinite 
value  of  salvation,  and  their  desire  to  obtain  it,  stimulate  them  to 
persevering  diligence  and  fidelity.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the 
condition  were  the  only  thing  made  known,  and  behevers  were  left 
without  any  promised  aid  from  above  to  insure  the  fulfilment  of 
that  condition,  they  would  be  destitute  of  encouragement  and 
support  where  they  would  most  need  it,  and  would  be  exposed  to 
a  disheartening  and  paralyzing  uncertainty  as  to  the  final  issue  of 
their  labors  and  prayers.  For  although  they  might  now  be 
resolved  to  be  diligent  in  well  doing,  what  reason  could  they  have 
to  feel  assured  that  their  resolution  and  diligence  would  continue  ? 
What  confidence  could  they  have  in  their  own  hearts,  which  expe- 
rience had  plainly  shown  to  be  so  fickle,  weak,  and  deceitful  ? 
Presumption  and  carnal  security  are  indeed  fearful  evils,  and 
shovild  in  every  form  and  degree  be  most  watchfully  avoided. 
But  they  are  not  the  only  evils  which  beset  the  followers  of  Christ. 
Nor  are  they  the  evils  to  which  the  meek  and  humble  are  gene- 
rally most  liable.  Discouragement,  despondency,  and  spiritual 
torpor  naturally  result  from  thinking  too  much  on  the  danger 
of  ultimate  failure.  The  Apostle  presents  the  idea,  that  God 
would  confirm  his  people  to  the  end,  and  finish  the  work  which  he 
had  begun  in  them,  as  the  means  of  cheering  and  animating  their 
hearts,  and  promoting  their  progress  in  holiness.  With  him  it 
was  no  matter  of  cold  speculation  or  philosophy,  but  a  subject  of 
gratitude  and  joyful  exultation.  When  Christians  are  impressed, 
as  they  should  be,  with  the  sinfulness  and  treachery  of  their  own 
hearts  and  their  proneness  to  depart  from  God,  it  is  not  enough 
for  them  to  know  that  God  will  fulfil  his  promises  and  give  them 


PERSEVERANCE.  235 

eternal  life,  if  they  are  not  wanting  on  their  part.  For  they  are 
aware  that  they  shall  be  wanting,  unless  they  are  aided  from 
above.  Both  Scripture  and  experience  have  taught  them,  that  it 
is  totally  unsafe  to  trust  in  themselves,  and  that  their  persevering 
in  the  way  to  heaven  depends  ultimately  on  the  continuance  of 
that  divine  influence  to  which  they  have  no  just  claim.  So  far  as 
they  are  left  in  doubt  whether  that  influence  will  be  granted,  they 
will  have  painful  doubts  as  to  their  final  salvation.  How  ear- 
nestly, then,  must  they  desire  and  pray,  that  God  would  grant 
them  continually  the  needed  influence  of  his  Spirit,  and  thus 
keep  them  from  falling,  and  prepare  them  for  the  rewards  of 
grace  ;  and  how  cheering  the  assurance  that  God  will  do  it. 

But  it  is  still  asserted  by  our  opponents,  that  our  doctrine  must 
naturally  influence  those  who  beUeve  it  to  negligence  and  supine- 
ness  in  the  business  of  religion,  and  that,  in  connection  with  the 
kindred  doctrine  of  election,  it  has  often,  in  fact,  proved  the  occa- 
sion of  uncommon  hardness  of  heart,  and  sometimes  of  the  most 
shameless  immorality  and  impiety. 

To  rid  your  minds  efiectually  of  this  difficulty,  which  has  been 
80  often  urged  against  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  I  would 
solicit  your  attention  to  the  following  points. 

To  whom,  I  ask,  does  the  doctrine  really  belong  ?  It  belongs 
to  Christians,  and  to  no  others.  The  sincere  followers  of  Christ 
are  the  persons  who  shall  be  preserved  from  fatal  apostasy.  The 
impenitent,  the  hypocritical,  whatever  their  profession  or  appear- 
ance, will  go  away  from  Christ  and  perish  in  sin. 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  objectors  ?  Do  they  mean  that 
it  has  a  bad  influence  upon  wicked  men,  to  believe  that  good  men 
will,  through  divine  grace,  persevere  in  holiness  ?  Without  doubt 
it  may  have  this  influence.  Those  who  are  governed  by  selfish- 
ness and  pride  may  feel  badly  towards  a  Christian,  because  he  is 
in  a  more  happy  condition  than  they  are.  They  may  envy  hum, 
because  he  is  an  heir  of  that  salvation  which  they  reject,  and 
because  God  is  engaged  to  finish  the  good  work  which  he  has 
begun  in  their  hearts.  God's  faithful  care  over  his  people  is  an 
unspeakable  blessing,  and  may  excite  envious  emotions  in  the 


236  PERSEVERANCE. 

ungodly,  and  so  occasion  an  increase  of  their  wickedness.  And 
a  similar  effect  may  be  produced  upon  them  by  any  other  gospel 
truth,  or  any  other  instance  of  God's  special  favor.  Their  hearts 
may  be  irritated  by  the  conversion  of  a  sinner,  and  by  the  holy 
and  happy  life  of  a  believer.  Nothing  is  too  sacred  to  be  per- 
verted by  the  enemies  of  God.  But  can  their  unreasonable  and 
"wicked  feehngs  and  conduct  be  alleged  as  an  objection  against 
divine  perfection  and  divine  truth  ?  I  must,  however,  say,  that 
the  doctrine  before  us  is,  in  its  own  nature,  adapted  to  exert  a 
good  influence,  even  upon  the  impenitent,  and,  like  other  truths, 
may  be  used  as  a  motive  to  repentance  and  faith.  Hearken,  we 
may  say  to  them  —  hearken  to  the  gospel,  put  away  your  sins, 
and  come  into  the  happy  condition  of  believers  ;  and  then  God 
will  not  only  pardon  you,  but  will  keep  you  from  falUng,  and  enar 
ble  you  to  continue  in  the  way  of  holiness,  till  you  reach  the 
heavenly  rest.  We  do  not  offer  you  a  precarious  good.  Believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  eternal  life  is  yours. 

Do  objectors  mean  to  say,  that  the  belief  of  our  doctrine  is 
likely  to  have  a  bad  influence  upon  false  professors  of  religion  ? 
This  I  also  admit.  If  men  think  themselves  Christians  when 
they  are  not  —  they  will  naturally  appropriate  to  themselves 
promises  and  a  prospect  of  divine  favor,  to  which  they  have  no 
title.  And  not  being  influenced  by  love  to  the  Saviour,  and  look- 
ing only  at  their  own  private  interest,  which  they  consider  as 
already  secured,  they  may  be  more  neglectful  of  duty,  and  more 
confirmed  in  a  life  of  impiety,  because  they  beheve  and  misapply 
the  doctrine  before  us.  This  doctrine,  associated  with  their  cor- 
rupt dispositions,  silences  conscience,  banishes  salutary  fear,  and 
places  them  at  an  almost  hopeless  distance  from  salvation.  But 
all  this  is  tJieir  fault,  not  the  fault  of  the  doctrine.  To  such  as 
they  are,  the  gospel,  as  preached  by  an  Apostle,  was  the  savor  of 
death  unto  death. 

Again.  Does  the  objection  come  from  some  real  Christians, 
who  reject  the  doctrine  because  they  think  the  belief  of  it  would 
be  injurious  to  them  ?  My  reply  is,  that  they  cannot  know  what 
eflfect  the  doctrine  would  really  produce  in  their  minds,  while  they 


PERSEVERANCE.  237 

reject  it.  Let  them  cordiallj  embrace  the  doctrine  as  revealed  in 
Scripture,  and  then  they  will  be  able  to  foi'm  a  correct  judgment 
of  its  appropriate  influence. 

I  ask  again,  is  it  the  meaning  of  objectors,  that  real  Christians 
may  be  injured  by  the  belief  of  the  doctrine  under  review  ?  This, 
too,  I  grant,  may  sometimes  be  the  case.  Christians  may  back- 
slide, and  for  a  time  lose  the  life  of  piety.  In  this  state  of  de- 
clension, they  may  pervert  all  the  truths  of  religion.  In  particular 
their  belief  of  the  certain  perseverance  of  the  saints,  mixing  with 
the  unhallowed  passions  which  now  predominate  in  their  hearts, 
may  beget  a  presumptuous  security,  and  instead  of  exciting  them 
to  repent  and  return  to  their  forsaken  Saviour,  may  render  them 
more  unmindful  of  their  duty,  and  more  disposed  to  continue  in 
the  indulgence  of  their  evil  propensities.  This  is  a  woful  fact. 
And  it  clearly  shows  what  would  be  the  issue  of  the  temporary 
apostasies  of  Christians,  were  it  not  for  the  unchangeable  love  and 
faithfulness  of  God,  which  now,  in  their  wretched  backslidings, 
they  turn  to  the  injury  of  their  own  souls. 

After  these  admissions,  we  are  brought  to  the  real  question 
between  us  and  our  opponents ;  namely,  what  influence  the  doc- 
trine under  discussion  is  suited  to  have  upon  the  followers  of 
Christy  when  they  feel  and  act  as  they  ought.  The  position  which 
I  maintain  is,  that  the  doctrine,  rightly  apprehended  and  received, 
is  eminently  suited  to  animate  Christians  to  the  various  duties 
of  a  holy  life,  to  strengthen  them  in  their  weaknesses  and  dis- 
couragements, and  to  contribute  in  all  respects  to  their  spiritual 
prosperity. 

The  doctrine,  that  believers  are  kept  from  fatal  apostasy  hy  the 
power  of  Grod,  implies  that  they  are  not  sufficient  to  keep  them- 
selves ;  a  proper  belief  of  which  works  habitual  humility  in  their 
hearts,  and  makes  them  feel  the  necessity  of  coming  often  to  the 
throne  of  grace,  that  they  may  be  guarded  from  seen  and  unseen 
dangers,  and  may  obtain  the  help  which  they  constantly  need. 
The  doctrine  in  its  Scripture  form,  coming  to  those  who  are  lowly 
in  heart,  and  who  are  sensible  of  their  fickleness  and  their  need 
of  strength  from  above,  conduces  directly  to  the  habit  of  fervent 


238  PERSEVERANCE. 

prayer.  It  is  here,  as  in  other  cases,  that  trust  in  the  promises 
of  God  leads  Christians  to  pray  for  the  blessings  promised.  Trust- 
ing as  they  do  in  God's  promise  that  he  will  never  forsake  his 
children,  but  will  preserve  them  to  his  eternal  kingdom,  they 
earnestly  seek  of  him  the  promised  protection  and  security. 

Again.  The  doctrine,  duly  received,  promotes  resolution  and 
activity  in  the  work  of  religion.  The  confidence  of  Paul  that  he 
and  all  who  were  with  him  in  the  ship  would  get  safe  to  land, 
stimulated  him  to  the  proper  efforts  to  secure  the  predicted  safety. 
It  has  been  said  of  Whitefield,  that  his  expectation  of  success  was 
among  the  chief  causes  of  his  zeal  and  power  in  preaching.  Dr. 
Whately,  who  is  no  Calvinist,  says,  the  idea  "  that  confidence  of 
success  necessarily  diminishes  exertion,  is  notoriously  the  reverse 
of  the  truth.  Every  General  seeks  to  inspire  his  soldiers  with 
the  firmest  confidence  of  victory ;  which  experience  proves  to  be 
the  best  incentive  to  those  exertions  which  are  necessary  to  en- 
sure it.  Many  a  man,  from  having  been  persuaded,  that  he  is 
destined  to  attain  some  great  object,  instead  of  being  lulled  into 
carelessness  by  this  belief,  has  been  excited  to  the  most  labori- 
ous and  unwearied  efforts,  such  as  perhaps  otherwise  he  would 
not  have  thought  of  making,  for  the  attainment  of  his  object." 
And  the  same  writer  refers  to  the  case  of  Paul  who,  trusting  in 
the  promised  grace  of  Christ,  pours  forth  his  exulting  confidence 
of  reaching  the  blessedness  of  heaven;  —  "Henceforth  there  is 
laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the 
righteous  Judge,  will  give  me  at  that  day."  With  such  an  as- 
surance, what  labors  did  the  Apostle  resolutely  perform,  and  what 
extremity  of  suffering  did  he  patiently  endure  !  Let,  then,  no 
disheartening  doubts  and  fears  be  lodged  in  the  minds  of  the 
humble  and  self-distrusting  disciples  of  Christ.  Let  them  cheer- 
fully rely,  not  upon  their  own  power,  but  iipon  the  power  of 
God,  "  which  worketh  in  them  mightily."  Let  them  rejoice  in 
his  promise  and  grace,  being  confident  that  he  who  hath  begun  a 
good  work  in  them  will  carry  it  on  to  its  completion. 


PERSEVERANCE.  239 

Another  objection  against  the  doctrine  before  us  is,  that  it  ia 
inconsistent  with  free  agency. 

To  this  I  reply  ;  that  the  continuance  of  their  sanctification  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  certainly  no  more  inconsistent  with  their  being 
free,  moral  agents,  than  the  commencement  of  that  work.  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  evident  than  this ;  that  God,  who  is  the  Creator 
and  upholder  of  moral  beings,  must  be  able  to  begin  and  continue 
the  w"ork  of  their  renewal  to  hohness  without  destroying  or  inter- 
rupting their  intellectual  or  moral  faculties.  However  powerful  and 
efficacious  his  influence  in  their  sanctification  may  be,  no  one  of 
them  will  ever  suffer  the  least  infringement  of  his  freedom.  It  is 
not  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  the  power  of  sin,  that  breaks  in  upon  our 
moral  freedom  and  reduces  us  to  slavery. 

It  is  the  practice  of  all  enlightened  Christians  to  pray,  that  God 
would  keep  them  from  falling  and  prepare  them  for  the  inherit- 
ance of  the  saints  above.  But  do  they  mean  to  pray  for  that 
which  God  cannot  do  without  destroying  their  moral  agency? 
What  would  you  think  of  Christians  who  should  offer  up  prayer 
in  this  sort ;  we  beseech  thee,  0  Grod,  to  enable  us  to  persevere  in 
holiness  to  the  end  of  life,  if  thou  canst  do  it  without  destroying  our 
nwral  agency. 

Finally.  You  may  as  well  say,  it  is  inconsistent  vdth  the  free 
moral  agency  of  angels  and  saints  in  heaven  for  God  to  perpetuate 
their  holiness,  as  to  say  the  same  of  saints  on  earth.  And  you 
may  as  well  cut  the  matter  short,  and  deny  the  truth  of  the  Bible 
and  the  existence  of  God,  as  to  say  the  one  or  the  other. 

Objectors  cite  the  passages  of  Scripture  w^hich  contain  exhortar 
tions  to  Christians  to  persevere,  and  solemn  warnings  against 
apostasy,  and  threats  of  perdition  to  those  who  forsake  the  ways 
of  holiness ;  and  all  these,  they  say,  plainly  imply  that  Christians 
may  fall  away,  and  that  they  are  in  danger  of  it. 

Reply.  I  acknowledge  that  Christians,  in  themselves  consid- 
ered, may  fall  away  and  perish,  and  that  they  are  in  great  danger 
of  it.  Our  doctrine  is,  not  that  Christians  are  in  no  danger  of 
fatal  apostasy,  but  that  God  uses  suitable  means  in  order  to  pre- 
serve them  from  danger,  and  accompanies  those  means  with  such 


240  PERSEVERANCE. 

an  influence  as  will  render  them  effectual  to  secure  the  end  de- 
sired. As  Christians  are  rational,  moral  beings,  the  means  called 
for  are  rational  motives  —  motives  adapted  to  influence  their  rea- 
son, their  conscience,  their  hopes  and  fears,  and  all  their  moral 
affections.  Such  are  the  exhortations  and  warnings  referred  to. 
If  Christians  are  to  persevere,  they  must  be  influenced  to  per- 
severe bj  these  very  motives.  If  God  intends  to  secure  their 
perseverance,  he  will  of  course  set  before  them  those  considera- 
tions which  are  suited  to  bring  about  that  result.  The  warnings 
and  exhortations  of  Scripture  —  all  the  modes  of  address  adapted 
to  guard  them  against  sin  and  draw  them  to  untiring  obedience, 
are  as  really  necessary,  as  means  in  any  case  are  necessary  to 
the  accomplishment  of  a  desired  object.  Believers  are  sanctified 
through  the  truth  ;  and  the  considerations  alluded  to  are  a  portion 
of  divine  truth.  And  you  might  dispense  with  any  other  portion 
of  the  truth  as  safely  as  Avith  this.  The  passages  of  Scripture 
which  are  made  the  ground  of  the  objection,  instead  of  proving 
that  the  perseverance  of  believers  is  a  matter  of  uncertainty, 
rather  prove  that  God  is  determined  to  secure  it.  At  least,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  consistently  secure  it  in  any 
other  way  ;  just  as  it  would  be  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  bring 
men  to  believe  on  him,  of  whom  they  have  not  heard. 

It  seems  then  to  be  manifest,  that  if  God  really  purposes  the 
final  perseverance  of  believers,  and  if  he  intends  to  secure  it  in  a 
manner  suited  to  their  intelligent  and  moral  nature,  there  is  a 
necessity  for  just  such  motives,  as  are  found  in  the  passages  of 
Scripture  to  which  I  have  alluded.  Not  that  exhortations,  or 
warnings,  or  any  other  means  will,  of  themselves,  insure  the  per- 
severance of  believers.  But  they  are  an  indispensable  means  of 
their  perseverance.  And  if  the  divine  Spirit  causes  them,  as 
rational  beings,  to  persevere  in  holy  Hving,  he  must  do  it,  so  far 
as  we  can  judge,  by  such  motives  as  the  word  of  God  urges  upon 
them  —  motives  addressed  to  their  reason,  conscience  and  moral 
affections. 

Ezek.  18:  24,  is  often  quoted  as  an  objection  to  our  doctrine. 
"  When  the  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness 


PERSEVERANCE.  241 

and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  according  to  all  the  abominar 
tion  which  a  wicked  man  doeth  ;  shall  he  live  ?  All  his  righteous- 
ness which  he  hath  done  shall  not  be  mentioned  ;  in  his  trespass 
and  in  his  sin,  in  them  shall  he  die  ?  "  Most  Calvinistic  writers 
dispose  of  this  text  by  saying,  that  the  person  intended  by  the 
prophet  is  not  a  saint  in  reality,  but  only  in  profession  or  appear- 
ance, and  that  such  a  one  will  be  very  likely  to  turn  from  his 
seeming  goodness,  and  to  perish  in  his  guilt.  But  to  what  would 
this  amount  ?  If  he  turns  from  his  seeming  goodness,  he  will 
perish !  And  so  he  will  if  he  does  not  turn.  The  form  of  godli- 
ness without  the  power,  will  not  save  him.  The  prophet  knew 
that  a  man  who  had  the  appearance  of  righteousness  Avithout  the 
reality,  would  perish,  whether  he  turned  from  it,  or  not.  Does 
not  the  whole  discourse,  taken  together,  plainly  show  that  the 
prophet  speaks  of  things  as  they  are  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  The 
righteousness  spoken  of  in  v.  24,  as  well  as  that  in  v.  22,  is  evi- 
dently real  and  saving  righteousness.  And  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  argument  of  the  objector  must  be  obviated  in  another  way, 
that  is,  by  considering  the  statement  of  the  prophet  as  merely 
hypothetical^  designed  to  bring  into  view  the  impartial  justice  and 
goodness  of  God,  and  the  fixed  connection  between  righteousness 
and  happiness,  and  between  unrighteousness  and  misery.  The 
statement  shows,  that  if  one  of  these  exists,  the  other  will  exist 
as  a  consequence.  But  the  statement  does  not  imply  that  the 
thing  supposed  would  ever  really  take  place.  So  the  Apostle 
says  ;  "  If  we  or  an  angel  from'  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel, 
let  him  be  accursed."  Dick,  in  his  Theology,  gives  the  folio Aving 
illustration  of  this  hypothetical  manner  of  speaking.  "  When 
a  philosopher  says,  if  a  comet  should  impinge  upon  the  earth,  the 
earth  would  be  burnt  up,  or  driven  from  its  orbit,  he  has  no  idea 
that  his  supposition  will  be  realized.  What  then,  it  may  be  asked, 
is  the  use  of  such  statements  ?  "  that  is,  such  as  those  made  by 
Ezekiel.  Dick  replies,  "  that  while  they  point  out  the  necessity 
of  continuance  in  holiness  to  the  attainment  of  final  salvation,  they 
are  a  means  of  exciting  believers  to  watchfulness,  diligence  and 
prayer,  and  thus  contribute  to  their  perseverance  in  grace  ;  —  for 
VOL  III.  21 


242  PERSEVERANCE. 

God  deals  with  them  as  rational  creatures,  and  works  upon  them 
bj  motives  addressed  to  their  hopes  and  their  fears." 

It  is  thought  by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  saints'  per- 
severance, and  by  a  few  individuals  who  maintain  it,  that  the  pas- 
sage in  Heb,  6:  4  —  6  is  also  to  be  explained  of  real  believers. 
But  a  careful  attention  to  the  passage  and  to  other  parallel 
texts  must,  1  think,  lead  to  a  different  conclusion.  The  manifest 
design  of  the  writer  is  to  describe  certain  persons  who  are  not 
merely  in  a  perishing  condition,  but  in  a  hoj>eIess  condition  —  per- 
sons of  whom  it  is  not  only  true  that  they  cannot  be  saved  without 
repentance,  but  u'ho  cannot  be  brought  to  repentance.  He  does 
not  say  of  unbelievers  in  general,  nor  even  of  all  those  who  are, 
like  Saul  of  Tarsus,  among  the  chief  of  sinners,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  renew  them  to  repentance.  He  says  it  only  of  a  particu- 
lar class  of  sinners,  namely,  of  those  "  who  have  been  once  en- 
lightened, and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  have  been 
made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have  tasted  of  the  good 
■word  of  God  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,  and  have  fall- 
en awayT  This  is  the  exact  rendering  of  the  original,  as  any 
one  who  understands  the  Greek  language  may  see.  The  writer 
does  not  interrupt  his  description  of  the  persons  intended  by  the 
word  ?/,  as  our  translators  have  done  —  "2/"  they  shall  fall  away." 
They  "  have  fallen  awayP  This  is  one  of  the  facts  stated.  It 
is  then,  I  think,  plain,  that  the  writer  had  his  eye  upon  what 
really  occurred  ;  that  what  he  says  was  meant  to  be  a  description 
of  persons  actually  existing  ;  and  that  their  falling  away  was  men- 
tioned not  as  a  mere  supposition,  but  as  a  well  known  fact,  making 
a  part  of  the  character  of  those  whose  guilty  and  wretched  con- 
dition he  presented  to  view. 

Dr.  Dwight  and  others,  Avith  good  reason,  consider  v.  8  as  re- 
lating to  the  same  persons  just  before  described  in  v.  4  —  6. 
"  But  that  which  beareth  thorns  and  briers  is  rejected  and  is  nigh 
unto  cursing,  Avhose  end  is  to  be  burned."  Why  did  the  writer 
speak  thus  in  this  place,  unless  it  was  to  set  forth,  in  another  form, 
the  character  and  end  of  the  apostates  Avhom  he  had  in  view,  in 
contrast  with  the  case  of  true  believers,  designated  in  v.  7.  "  For 


PERSEVERANCE.  243 

the  earth  which  drinketh  in  the  rain,  and  bringeth  forth  herbs, 
etc.,  receiveth  blessing  from  God."  Such  is  the  happy  case  of 
those  who  are  faithful  followers  of  Christ ;  and  such  is  the  woful 
case  of  those  who  fall  away,  after  having  enjoyed  the  distinguished 
favors  described  in  v.  4  —  6. 

The  account  given  of  the  high  privileges  and  the  peculiar  exer- 
cises of  the  persons  to  whom  the  sacred  writer  refers  has,  I  think, 
been  well  explained  by  Dr.  Owen,  with  whom  almost  all  the  evan- 
gelical commentators  agree.  The  language  employed  to  set  forth 
the  character  of  these  persons  is  much  hke  that  which  is  else- 
where employed  to  set  forth  the  character  of  real  Christians.  But 
it  is  here  to  be  taken  in  a  lower  sense.  Those  Avho  believe  to  the 
saving  of  the  soul,  have  been  enlightened  and  have  tasted  the 
good  word  of  God,  and  have  been  made  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  one  sense.  Others  may  be  said  to  be  enlightened,  and 
to  have  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  etc.,  in  another  sense.  A 
just  interpretation  of  Scripture  requires  that  we  should  in  many 
instances  give  different  significations  to  the  same  words  and  ex- 
pressions. To  believe,  to  escape  the  pollutions  of  the  world 
through  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  to  know  the  way  of  righteous- 
ness, to  receive  the  word  with  joy  —  these  and  other  similar 
phrases  well  express  what  is  characteristic  of  those  who  are  truly 
regenerated.  But  they  are  sometimes  used  in  Scripture  and  in 
free  religious  discourse  with  an  inferior  signification,  and  are  ap- 
plied to  those  who  are  destitute  of  holiness.  This  variety  of  sig- 
nifications is  demanded  by  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  differ- 
ent cases.  The  language  taken  by  itself,  separate  from  the 
connection,  and  from  other  circumstances,  is  not  sufficient  to  make 
known  the  meaning  which  the  writer  would  convey.  I  leave  it  to 
you  to  carry  out  this  general  principle  in  reference  to  the  passage 
under  consideration,  recommending  particularly  the  exegetical  and 
practical  remarks  of  Owen  in  his  Exposition. 

V.  9  still  further  sustains  the  construction  which  I  have  given 
to  V.  4  —  G.  The  writer  says  to  those  whom  he  addresses,  "  But 
beloved,  we  are  persuaded  better  things  of  you,  and  things  which 
accompany  salvation,  though  we  thus  speak."     Better  things  than 


244  PERSEVERANCE. 

what  ?  Why,  better  than  the  things  he  had  mentioned,  v.  4  —  6 
and  8  —  even  things  which  accompany  salvation  —  things  appro- 
priat-e  to  those  who  are  saved.  We  are  persuaded  that  you  are 
followers  of  Christ  and  heirs  of  eternal  life,  "  though  we  thus 
speak,"  —  though  we  declare  to  you  the  miserable  condition  of 
those  who  abuse  such  distinguished  favors  —  who  have  been  ex- 
alted to  heaven,  but  for  their  aggravated  impiety  shall  be  thrust 
down  to  hell.  In  the  closing  part  of  the  chapter,  the  sacred 
writer  keeps  in  view  the  case  of  those  who  have  saving  faith  — 
who  have  laid  hold  of  the  hope  set  before  them,  in  evident  contrar 
distinction  to  those  who  possess  the  highest  privileges,  the  warm- 
est affections  and  the  most  joyful  hopes,  without  those  "  better 
things  which  accompany  salvation." 

In  connection  with  this  chapter,  take  Heb.  10:  26 — 29,  38,  39. 
"  For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins.  —  Of  how 
much  sorer  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy  who  hath  trod- 
den under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  —  and  hath  done  despite  to  the 
Spirit  of  grace."  Evidently  the  same  general  object  is  placed 
before  us  here  as  in  ch.  vi,  that  is,  the  woful  condition  of  those 
who  commit  high-handed  offences  under  the  light  of  the  gospel 
and  the  clear  manifestations  of  redeeming  love.  At  the  close, 
after  saying,  "  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,  but  if  any  man  draw 
back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him,"  he  refers  again  very 
distinctly  to  the  two  classes  of  men,  and  to  their  conditions,  in 
contrast  with  each  other.  "  We  are  not  of  them  Avho  draw  back 
to  perdition,  but  of  them  who  beheve  to  the  saving  of  the  soul." 
There  are  those  who  draw  back  to  perdition.  But  we  do  not  go 
with  them.  There  are  those  who  believe  to  the  saving  of  the 
soul ;  and  we  belong  to  their  number.  n 

To  make  it  still  more  evident,  by  a  comparison  of  texts,  that 
the  writer  to  the  Heb.  ch.  vi,  meant  to  give  a  description  of  real 
apostates,  such  as  then  existed,  and  such  as  have  often  existed 
since,  and  to  illustrate  still  further  the  methods  by  which  different 
writers  labor  to  excite  salutary  fear  and  watchfulness  in  believers, 
I  shall  cite  what  is  written  on  the  same  subject,  2  Pet.  2:  20 — 22. 


PERSEVERANCE.  245 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  he  here  describes  persons 
who  were  actually  found  among  those  who  had  been  regarded 
as  converts  in  his  day.  "  For  if,  after  they  have  escaped  the 
pollutions  of  the  world  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  they  are  again  entangled  therein  and  over- 
come ;  the  latter  end  is  worse  with  them,  than  the  beginning. 
For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not  to  have  known  the  way  of 
righteousness,  than  after  they  have  known  it  to  turn  from  the  holy 
commandment  delivered  unto  them.  But  it  has  happened  unto 
them,"  (he  is  speaking  of  a  fact,)  "  it  has  happened  unto  them 
according  to  the  true  proverb ;  the  dog  is  turned  to  his  own  vomit 
again,  and  the  sow  that  was  washed  to  her  wallowing  in  the  mire." 
The  persons  here  spoken  of  had  "  known  the  way  of  righteous- 
ness," and  had  "  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world  through  the 
knowledge  of  Christ."  Their  illumination,  their  attainments,  and 
their  apparent  goodness  had  been  remarkable,  though  perhaps  not 
equal  to  those  described  in  Heb.  6:  4 — 6.  But  after  having  been 
thus  enlightened  and  reformed  under  the  influence  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  they  turned  back  to  the  pollutions  of  the  world, 
and  so  were  fitly  represented  by  the  proverb  of  the  dog  and  the 
swine. 

But  a  farther  diflSculty  occurs.  If  it  is  a  settled  point  that  true 
believers  never  draw  back  to  perdition,  then  why  should  we  speak 
to  them  of  the  misdemeanors  of  those  who  have  another  and  dif- 
ferent character  ?  What  has  the  apostasy  and  the  wretchedness 
of  false  professors  to  do  with  those  who  are  steadfast  and  unmov- 
able,  being  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salva- 
tion ? 

Reply.  As  it  is  God's  design  that  all  the  regenerate  shall  per- 
severe in  holiness,  he  appoints  those  dispensations  of  providence, 
and  gives  those  instructions  in  his  word,  and  those  influences  of 
his  Spirit,  which  are  suited  to  accomphsh  his  gracious  design.  It 
would  be  exceedingly  strange,  if  after  he  has  purposed  their  per- 
severance, he  should  not  use  the  proper  means  to  secure  it.  In 
regard  to  the  propriety  of  presenting  before  behevers  the  case  of 
apostates,  I  appeal  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  in  regard  to  the  utility 

21* 


246  PEKSEVERANCE. 

of  it,  I  appeal  to  the  good  sense  and  experience  of  Christians. 
Of  the  propriety  of  presenting  the  case  of  apostates  in  this  man- 
ner, the  example  of  the  inspu*ed  writers  is  decisive  proof.  Several 
striking  instances  occur  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  In  ch.  iii 
the  writer  addresses  his  "  holy  brethren,"  who  were  "  partakers 
of  the  heavenly  calling,"  and  he  speaks  solemnly  to  them  of  those 
viho  rebelled  in  the  wilderness,  and  were  not  permitted  to  enter 
the  promised  land.  And  he  makes  that  unhappy  case  the  matter 
of  earnest  exhortation  and  warning  to  Christians,  to  guai'd  against 
an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,  and  to  take  heed  lest  they  should  fall 
short  of  the  heavenly  rest.  He  repeats  the  exhortation  and 
warning  ch.  4:  11.  As  so  many  of  the  Israelites  were  excluded 
from  the  promised  land  by  unbelief,  let  us,  he  says,  labor  to  enter 
into  the  higher  rest,  lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same  example  of 
unbelief.  See  warnings  of  the  same  kind  also  in  ch.  vi  and  x. 
The  Apostles  Paul  frequently  addresses  behevers  in  a  similar 
way.  In  1  Cor.  10:  5 — 12,  there  is  a  remarkable  instance  of 
this,  taken  from  the  same  example  of  the  Israehtes.  "  With 
many  of  them  God  was  not  well  pleased ;  and  they  were  over- 
thrown in  the  wilderness."  And  the  Apostle  says,  these  things 
were  intended  as  examples  to  the  brethren  whom  he  addressed,  to 
warn  them  against  similar  transgressions  and  similar  punishments. 
They  were  recorded  as  admonitions  to  Christians.  And  the 
Apostle  makes  this  practical  conclusion  of  the  whole  for  the  bene- 
fit of  himself  and  his  brethren.  "  Wherefore  let  him  that  think- 
eth  he  standeth,  take  heed  lest  he  fall."  We  must  then  admit 
the  propriety  and  the  wisdom  of  this  mode  of  exhorting  and  warn- 
ing Christians,  inasmuch  as  it  has  the  sanction  of  the  infalhble 
word  of  God.  And  as  to  its  practical  utility,  my  appeal  is  to  the 
good  sense  and  experience  of  Christians.  The  representation 
which  the  Apostle  gives  of  himself,  shows  how  he  regarded 
this  matter.  He  labored,  and  strove,  and  fought ;  he  kept  under 
his  body  and  brought  it  into  subjection,  lest,  after  preaching  the 
gospel  to  others,  he  should  be  disapproved.  And  who  that  knows 
his  own  heart  —  who  that  has  the  humility  of  a  Christian,  and 
brembles  at  the  word  of  God,  can  think  of  the  apostasy  of  any 


PERSEVERANCE.  247 

who  once  appeared  among  the  followers  of  Christ,  without  being 
awakened  to  a  salutary  alarm,  and  to  a  watchful  care  to  guard 
against  all  temptations  to  depart  from  the  way  of  holiness.  If 
any  one  who  calls  himself  a  Christian,  finds  himself  unmoved  by 
the  admonitions  of  Scripture  and  by  the  examples  of  apostasy 
with  which  he  is  made  acquainted  —  if  he  can  wrap  himself  up  in 
his  own  fancied  strength  and  security,  and  say,  what  have  I  to  do 
with  warnings  against  backsliding  and  apostasy  —  why  should  I  be 
told  of  danger,  and  exhorted  to  watch  and  fear  and  pray  lest  I 
should  fall  short  of  heaven,  when  I  have  an  assurance  of  being 
kept  to  eternal  life  —  if  any  one  takes  this  ground  and  indulges 
these  feelings,  he  gives  us  much  cause  to  think  that  he  has  no  part 
or  lot  in  the  religion  of  Christ.  Believers  will  be  affected  by  the 
examples  and  warnings  referred  to,  in  proportion  as  they  know  the 
treachery  of  their  own  hearts  and  the  difficulties  in  the  way  to 
eternal  life,  and  in  proportion  as  they  are  advanced  in  piety,  and 
are  intent  upon  doing  the  will  of  God.  Watchfulness,  pious  fear 
and  trembhng,  and  a  desire  to  profit  both  by  the  happy  end  of  the 
faithful  and  the  unhappy  end  of  hypocrites  and  unbelievers  — 
these  are  among  the  obvious  characteristics  of  the  children  of 
God. 

Our  opponents  say  that  some  real  saints  have  apostatized  ;  and 
they  urge  the  passage  in  John  17:  12,  as  furnishing  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  this.  Jesus  says,  "  Those  whom  thou  hast  given  me  I 
have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition." 
This,  it  is  said,  implies,  that  one  of  those  whom  the  Father  gave 
to  Christ,  fell  away  and  perished. 

Reply.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  Judas  was  ever  a  real 
believer.  We  are  told  that  Jesus  knew  his  character  from  the 
beginning  ;  that  he  made  choice  of  twelve  as  witnesses,  but  one  of 
them  was  "  a  devil."  He  chose  Judas,  not  for  his  piety,  but  for 
other  reasons.  Important  ends  were  evidently  answered  by  the 
fact,  that  a  subtle  enemy,  who  had  been  intimately,  acquainted 
with  his  public  and  private  life  through  the  whole  of  his  ministry, 
was  at  last  constrained,  by  his  own  conscience,  to  give  an  open 
testimony  to  his  innocence.  These  ends  were  undoubtedly  de- 
signed, when  Judas  was  chosen  as  one  of  the  twelve. 


248  PERSEVERANCE. 

The  passage  above  cited,  is  interpreted  by  the  best  philologists 
in  this  way :  "  Those  whom  thou  hast  given  me  I  have  kept,  and 
none  of  them  is  lost ;  hut  the  son  of  perdition  is  lost."  Other 
similar  declarations  of  Christ  require  the  same  construction.  He 
says,  "  Many  widows  were  in  Israel  in  the  days  of  Elias  ;  but  to 
none  of  them  was  Elias  sent,  save  unto  Sarepta,  a  city  of  Sidon, 
to  a  woman  that  was  a  widow."  This  widow  was  not  one  of  the 
widows  in  Israel.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  prophet  was  not  sent 
to  any  of  the  widows  in  Israel,  but  was  sent  to  a  widow  in  Sidon. 
Again  he  says,  "  There  were  many  lepers  in  Israel  in  the  time  of 
Ehseus  the  prophet ;  but  none  of  them  were  cleansed,  save 
Naaman  the  Syrian."  Naaman  was  not  one  of  the  lepers  in  Is- 
rael. The  meaning  is,  that  none  of  the  lepers  in  Israel  were 
cleansed,  but  Naaman  the  Syrian  ivas  cleansed.  The  text  above 
cited  respecting  Judas,  is  clearly  to  be  construed  in  the  same 
manner.  It  appears  from  the  whole  history,  that  he  was  never  a 
sincere  friend  and  disciple  of  Christ.  But  Christ  chose  to  let  his 
hypocrisy  remain  unknown,  till  he  revealed  it  by  his  own  conduct. 
The  text  then  has  no  relation  to  the  perseverance  of  saints,  inas- 
much as  Judas  never  was  a  saint. 

Those  who  deny  our  doctrine  produce  other  examples  of  believ- 
ers who  apostatized,  as  David,  Solomon,  Peter,  Hymeneus,  Alex- 
ander, Philetus  and  Demas.  Now  in  regard  to  real  saints,  we 
allow  that  they  may  and  do  fall  into  great  sins.  What  our  doc- 
trine implies  is,  that  however  great  their  sins,  they  will  repent ; 
that  however  grievous  their  falls,  they  will  be  raised  up  again  ; 
and  that  they  will  be  preserved  from  final  apostasy.  As  to  those 
who  have  the  mere  form  of  godliness  —  their  open  and  final  apos- 
tasy is  nothing  strange,  but  is  rather  to  be  expected  ;  and  it  is  no 
more  evidence  against  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  than  the 
conduct  of  those  who  are  denoted  by  the  seed  which  fell  on  stony 
places,  and  whose  falling  away  resulted  from  their  wanting  the 
principle  of  holiness.  Of  those  who  profess  to  be  followers  of 
Christ,  but  forsake  the  way  of  obedience  and  perish  in  their  sins, 
the  Apostle  John  gives  a  very  satisfactory  account.  1  John  2:  19, 
"  They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us  j  for  if  they 


PERSEVERANCE.  249 

had  been  of  us,  they  would  have  continued  with  us."  Their  for- 
saking the  right  way  made  it  manifest,  he  says,  that  they  did  not 
belong  to  the  number  of  the  faithful.  If  they  had  been  of  that 
number,  they  would  have  continued  with  them.  The  Apostle 
Paul,  1  Cor.  11:  19,  speaks  of  it  as  one  of  the  ends  which  in  the 
providence  of  God  were  answered  by  errors  and  disorders  in  the 
church,  that  they  Avho  were  approved  might  be  made  manifest,  in 
distinction  from  others.  This  is  the  case  in  all  ages.  Much  is 
done  by  the  influence  of  divine  truth  and  the  divine  administration, 
to  make  a  visible  separation,  even  in  this  life,  between  the  real 
friends  of  Christ,  and  those  who  are  friends  only  in  profession. 
The  sum  of  the  matter  is  this,  that  final  perseverance  in  faith  and 
obedience  invariably  accompanies  true  discipleship. 


LECTURE     CVI. 


IHE  GREEK  WORD  dvdataGig,  RENDERED  RESURRECTION,  USED  IN 
DIFFERENT  SENSES.  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY.  RESUBr 
EECTION  A  FUTURE  EVENT. 

In  the  present  Lecture  I  shall  consider  the  doctrine  of  the  Resur- 
rection.* Dr.  Bwight  thinks  that  the  word  dvdazaaig  is  generally 
used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  a  future  state  of  existence, 
without  any  particular  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
It  is  evidently  used  in  this  more  general  and  extensive  sense  in 
Matt.  22:  23 — 33.  The  Sadducees  denied  the  resurrection,  or 
as  it  is  stated  in  Acts  23:  8  ;  they  said  "  there  is  no  resurrection, 
neither  angel  nor  spirit.'^  They  rejected  the  idea  of  any  state  of 
existence  beyond  the  present.  It  was  in  opposition  to  that  infidel 
opinion  of  the  Sadducees,  that  Jesus  cited  the  declaration  of  God 
to  Moses  ;  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob  ;  "  showing  from  this,  that  those  patriarchs 
were  in  a  living,  conscious  state,  as  "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the 
dead,  but  of  the  hving."  The  truth  implied  was,  that  none  but 
holy,  happy  beings  could  stand  in  such  a  relation  to  God,  and 
consequently  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  of  course  other 

♦  It  would  be  suitable  to  follow  the  subject  of  the  saints'  perseverance  with 
Lectures  on  the  duty  of  growing  in  grace,  on  death,  and  on  the  intelligent,  active 
existence  of  the  soul  in  the  intermediate  state.  But  I  have  concluded  to  omit 
these  topics  in  this  publication,  although  I  was  accustomed  to  give  them  particu- 
lar attention  in  the  Lecture  Room,  —  and  to  proceed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Resur- 
netion. 


RESURRECTION.  261 

departed  saints,  existed  as  God's  people  in  a  state  of  intelligent 
activity  and  blessedness.  The  passage  cited  by  Christ  was  pei> 
fectlj  suited  to  his  object,  and,  in  opposition  to  the  Sadducees, 
clearly  proved  the  spiritual  and  happy  existence  of  good  men 
after  death.  In  this  place,  the  word  dvdataaig  had  a  general 
sense,  a  sense  corresponding  with  the  object  which  Jesus  had  in 
view,  that  is,  to  expose  the  error  of  the  Sadducees,  and  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  retribution. 

Here  it  is  natural  to  inquire,  how  we  can  account  for  it  that 
the  word  dvdaruaig  is  used  in  diflferent  senses  in  different  parts 
of  the  New  Testament ;  in  some  places  denoting  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  in  other  places  taking  the  general  sense  of  a  con- 
scious and  happy  existence  of  men  after  death.  The  solution 
•which  I  offer,  is  grounded  on  a  general  principle  of  language, 
according  to  which  a  word  varies  in  its  signification  as  circum- 
stances require,  —  sometimes  conveying  a  sense  more  extensive, 
sometimes  less  extensive,  —  sometimes  presenting  a  subject  in  one 
of  its  aspects,  sometimes  in  another.  Now  it  is  to  be  understood 
as  a  settled  point  in  the  divine  plan,  that  man  exists  now,  and  is 
to  exist  ultimately  and  forever,  as  a  complex  being,  consisting  of 
soul  and  body ;  that  although  the  spiritual  part  may  exist,  and, 
for  a  time  immediately  subsequent  to  death,  does  exist  without 
any  connection  with  the  body,  the  separation  comes  by  way  of 
exception  to  the  general  law  of  our  nature,  and  is  a  grievous  dis- 
order consequent  upon  sin  ;  that  the  separation  is,  however,  only 
for  a  short  period  —  a  period  hardly  worthy  to  be  named  com- 
pared with  the  immortality  which  follows  ;  that  after  this  short 
interval,  the  evil  occasioned  by  sin  will  be  removed,  death  will 
yield  up  his  prey,  and  man  will  exist  in  that  complex  state,  in 
which  he  existed  during  his  probation,  and  which  the  wisdom  of 
his  Creator  appointed  for  him  in  the  world  of  endless  retribution. 
But  the  constituent  parts  of  man's  complex  nature  will  harmonize ; 
and  as  the  souls  of  the  saints  will  hereafter  reach  a  perfection  far 
above  what  is  attained  in  the  present  life,  their  bodies  will  in  like 
manner  be  refined  and  exalted,  and  be  fitted  for  celestial  employ- 
ments and  pleasures.     Hence  it  was  nothing  strange  that  the 


252  RESURRECTION. 

word  dvdazaaig,  referring  to  man  in  the  world  to  come,  should 
sometimes  respect  his  existence  as  a  spiritual  being,  sustaining 
a  near  and  happy  relation  to  God ;  and  should  at  other  times 
respect  him  in  his  corporeal  part,  which  is  to  be  raised  from  the 
dead.  "When  it  is  used  in  this  last  sense,  as  it  generally  is,  it  has 
the  same  signification  as  tyegstg. 

The  idea  of  our  future  existence,  as  intelligent  and  moral 
beings,  has  been  common  among  mankind,  even  in  heathen  lands, 
and  seems  to  result  from  the  exercise  of  their  rational  and  moral 
faculties.  But  the  resurrection  of  the  body  appears  to  be  a  matter 
of  pure  revelation. 

There  is  satisfactory  reason  to  believe  that  the  people  of  God, 
imder  the  former  dispensation,  certainly  the  more  enlightened  of 
them,  had  a  clear  conception  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body.  It 
appears  that  Abraham  was  not  a  stranger  to  this  conception ;  for 
we  are  informed,  thai  in  the  severe  trial  he  was  called  to  meet  in 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  on  whose  life  so  much  depended,  he  found 
refuge  and  support  in  the  belief  that  God  was  able  to  raise  his 
son  from  the  dead.  He  must  have  been  more  or  less  familiar 
with  the  conception  of  such  an  eflfect  of  the  power  of  God,  unless 
it  was  then  for  the  first  time  suggested  to  his  mind  by  a  supemor 
tural  influence. 

Instances  of  actual  resurrection  are  mentioned,  as  remarkable 
achievements  of  faith,  among  the  former  saints.  "  Women  re- 
ceived their  dead  raised  to  life  again."  Heb,  11:  35.  And  in 
the  same  verse  it  is  said  that  "  others  were  tortured,  not  accept- 
ing deliverance,"  and  that  they  endured  suffering  for  this  pur- 
pose, "  that  they  might  obtain  a  better  resurrection,^^  —  a  resur- 
rection to  eternal  life  in  heaven.  And  who  can  doubt  that  Isaiah 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  when  he  said,  "  He 
will  swallow  up  death  in  victory  ;  "  and  again,  "  Thy  dead  men 
shall  live,  together  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake 
and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew 
of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  her  dead^  Who  can 
doubt  that  Daniel  believed  the  doctrine,  when  he  said,  "  Many 
of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake  ;  some 


RESURRECTION.  253 

to  everlasting  life,  and  some   to   shame   and   everlasting  con- 
tempt ?  " 

The  New  Testament  reveals  the  doctrine  with  vastly  greater 
clearness,  and  so  may  be  said,  comparatively,  to  have  brought  life 
and  immortality  to  light.  But  my  argument  will  rest  on  a  few 
leading  texts. 

John  5:  25,  "  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  the  hour  is,  com- 
ing and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  they  that  hear  shall  live ;  "  signifying  that  he  would, 
during  his  present  ministry,  exercise  his  power  in  raising  the 
dead  ;  which  in  several  instances  he  did.  But  in  v.  28,  29,  he 
proceeded  to  a  larger  view  of  the  subject,  and  foretold  the  fact 
of  a  general  resurrection.  "  Marvel  not  at  this  ;  "  that  is,  at 
what  he  had  just  said,  v.  25  ;  —  "  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the 
which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall 
come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  to  the  resurrection  of  life  ; 
and  they  that  have  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation." 
In  1  Thess.  3: 12 — 17,  the  Apostle  comforts  believers  by  predictmg 
the  happy  resurrection  of  those  who  sleep  in  Jesus  ;  "  If  we 
believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so  them  who  sleep  in 
Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him."  He  afterwards  says,  "  the  dead 
in  Christ  shall  rise."  In  Phil.  3:  21,  the  Apostle  says  ;  "  We 
look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  change  our 
vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  to  his  glorious  body." 
1  Cor.  6:  14,  "  God  hath  both  raised  up  the  Lord,  and  will  also 
raise  up  us  by  his  own  power."  The  same  is  taught  2  Cor.  4: 
14.  But  the  subject  is  treated  most  particularly  and  fully  in 
1  Cor.  XV.  An  error  had  made  its  appearance  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  which  the  Apostle  undertook  to  refute,  v.  12,  "  Now  if 
Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead,  how  say  some 
among  you,  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  "  He  then 
enters  on  a  labored  argument,  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  all  along  implying,  that 
the  relation  of  believers  to  Christ  is  so  close  and  inseparable, 
that  if  Christ  was  raised,  they  will  certainly  be  raised  in  like 
manner. 

VOL.  m,  22 


254  RESURRECTION. 

After  this  general  view  of  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  I 
shall  endeavor  to  set  forth  more  particularly  what  revelation 
teaches,  presenting  the  subject  exactly  in  the  light  in  which  it  is 
presented  in  the  word  of  God,  neither  adding  anything  to  it,  nor 
taking  anything  from  it. 

1.  The  texts  above  quoted  clearly  teach,  that  there  will  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  body.  In  some  of  the  texts  the  body  is 
expressly  mentioned.  "  With  my  dead  body  shall  they  live." 
"  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body^  In  all  the  texts  this  is 
implied.  The  dead  shall  live.  All  that  are  m  the  graves  shall 
come  forth.  Those  who  sleep  in  Jesus  shall  awake.  What  Paul 
taught  led  some  to  inquire,  "  how  are  the  dead  raised,  and  with 
what  bodies  do  they  come  ?  "  Why  should  they  have  made  this 
inquiry,  had  he  not  taught  that  there  would  be  a  resun'ection  of 
the  body  ?  And  what  is  the  answer  he  gives  to  their  inquiry  ? 
Not  that  he  had  taught  no  such  thing  as  the  resurrection  of 
bodies  turned  to  dust ;  but  that  the  bodies  raised  would  be  greatly 
altered  from  what  they  were  in  their  former  state ;  —  not  that 
dead  bodies  would  not  be  raised,  but  that  they  would  be  raised  in 
a  superior  condition.  What  does  the  history  of  the  actual  resur- 
rections, which  took  place  under  both  dispensations,  teach  ?  It 
teaches  that  in  every  instance,  the  resurrection  mentioned  was  the 
restoring  of  a  dead  body  to  life.  I  speak  now  of  the  simple  fact, 
not  of  the  mode  or  circumstances  of  it.  And  I  cannot  conceive 
how  any  Christian,  who  honestly  inquires  after  that  which  the 
inspired  writers  taught,  can  doubt  that,  in  a  true  and  proper 
sense,  the  bodies  of  men  at  the  resurrection  ■will  be  restored  to 
life. 

In  what  way  did  the  people  of  God  obtain  an  idea  of  resurrec- 
tion ?  How  did  they  learn  what  it  was,  except  from  the  significa- 
tion of  the  words  employed  to  express  it,  and  from  the  instances 
of  actual  resurrection  with  which  they  were  acquainted  ?  And 
■what  was  in  reality  the  idea  which  they  entertained  of  it  ?  What 
did  Abraham  understand  by  God's  being  able  to  raise  Isaac  from 
the  dead  ?  We  are  told  that  "  women  received  their  dead,  raised 
to  life  again."     What  was  the  event  referred  to  ?     And  what  was 


RESURRECTION.  255 

iheir  conception  of  it  ?  What  was  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  ? 
Aiid  how  did  his  sisters  and  friends  understand  it  ?  The  history 
of  the  case  is  given  by  the  Evangelist.  Lazarus  was  sick  and 
died,  and  lay  some  days  in  the  grave.  Jesus  went  to  the  grave, 
and,  in  the  presence  of  a  multitude,  said,  "  Lazarus,  come  forth." 
The  dead  man  heard  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  came  forth. 
Who  or  what  came  forth  ?  It  was  Lazarus  in  his  bodily  state  ;  in 
other  words,  it  was  the  body  of  Lazarus.  That  which  had  been 
dead  was  raised  to  life  again.  The  facts  were  plain,  and  all 
understood  them  alike.  Come  now  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
He  had  repeatedly  predicted  his  own  resurrection.  And  his  pre- 
diction was  exactly  accomplished.  After  his  crucifixion,  his  body 
was  laid  in  a  tomb.  On  the  morning  of  the  third  day,  pious 
women  went  to  the  tomb  to  anoint  his  body,  after  the  manner  of 
the  Jews ;  but  his  body  was  not  there.  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead.  His  disciples  frequently  saw  him  after  his  resurrection. 
They  saw  the  print  of  the  nails  in  his  hands,  and  of  the  sword  in 
his  side.  The  evidence  was  such,  that  even  Thomas,  with  all  his 
incredulity,  was  convinced  of  the  identity  of  the  body.  The 
resurrection  body  of  Jesus  was  doubtless  in  a  different  state  from 
what  it  was  before  his  death.  But  it  was  a  body,  and  it  was  his 
body,  unless  his  disciples  were  all  deceived  by  what  they  saw  and 
heard  and  felt.  If  he  had  such  a  resurrection  as  Swedenborg 
supposes,  he  must  have  had  two  resurrections ;  one  soon  after  his 
death,  the  other  the  third  day  after ;  one  leaving  his  body  still 
dead  in  the  tomb  where  it  was  laid,  the  other  being  a  resurrection 
of  the  dead  body  itself.  It  is  too  evident  to  be  doubted,  that  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  as  described  by  the  Evangelists,  was  very 
different  from  what  the  followers  of  the  Swedish  prophet  under- 
stand by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  All  that  is  said  in  the 
Scriptures  of  those  who  were  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  shows  plainly,  that  it  was  the  resurrection  of  that  real, 
visible  thing,  his  body.  A  large  number  saw  him  after  his  resur- 
rection, and  conversed  with  him,  and  some  of  them  "  handled  him 
with  their  hands."  And  unless  his  resurrection  was  such  as 
answered  to  the  common  idea  of  that  event,  how  could  it  have 


^^6  RESURRECTION. 

been  regai'ded  as  a  proof  of  his  Messiahship  ?  Suppose  he  had 
been  raised  according  to  the  doctrine  above  alluded  to ;  that  is, 
suppose  at  his  death,  his  spirit  had  been  separated  from  his  body, 
accompanied  with  a  subtle,  ethereal  organization  invisible  to  mor- 
tals, except  when  made  visible  by  a  miracle  ;  and  suppose  his 
real  body  had  remained  in  the  tomb,  and  had  been  anointed  with 
the  "  spices  and  ointments  "  prepared,  and  had  thus  been  pre- 
served in  a  sound  state,  open  to  the  inspection  of  friends  and  foes. 
On  this  supposition,  how  would  it  have  been  possible  to  verify  his 
prediction  concerning  his  resurrection  ?  Who  among  the  Jews, 
who  even  among  his  disciples,  would  ever  have  believed  that  he 
was  risen  from  the  dead  ?  His  enemies  would  have  boasted  of  the 
evidence  they  had  that  his  prediction  was  false,  and  that  he  was  a 
deceiver.  He  had  said  that  he  should  rise  from  the  dead  the 
third  day.  But  he  had  not  risen ;  for  there  was  his  dead  body 
still,  carefully  preserved  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph,  where  any 
one  might  see  it.  In  this  way  the  evidence  would  have  been 
incontrovertible,  that  he  had  not  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  his 
disciples  would  have  been  confounded,  and  would  have  been 
obliged  to  confess  that  their  Lord  and  Master  was  an  impostor ; — 
and  thus  the  fabric  of  Christianity  would  have  crumbled  into  dust. 
If  any  one  of  the  apostles  had  stood  forth  as  a  witness  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  he  would  have  belied  his  own  conscience,  and  the 
voice  of  the  whole  community  would  have  pronounced  him  a  false 
witness.  Whatever  else  is  doubtful,  this  is  certain,  that  such  a 
resurrection  as  that  above  mentioned,  was  not  the  resurrection 
which  Jesus  predicted,  and  which  actually  took  place  in  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  px-ediction  ;  —  it  was  not  what  Jesus,  or  his  disciples, 
or  the  Jewish  nation,  understood  by  the  word  resurrection.  Un- 
less the  resurrection  of  Christ  had  been  widely  different  from  the 
one  referred  to  —  unless  there  had  been  a  resurrection  of  that 
very  body  of  Jesus  which  was  laid  in  the  sepulchre  —  the  angel 
would  not  have  said  to  the  women  who  went  so  early  to  anoint  the 
body,  "  He  is  not  here,  for  he  is  risen,  as  he  said.  Come,  see  the 
place  where  the  Lord  lay."  Unless  there  had  been  such  a  resur- 
rection of  the  body  of  Jesus,  there  would  have  been  no  firm  basis 


RESURRECTION.  257 

on  which  to  rest  the  truth  of  his  claims  as  the  Messiah,  and  the 
authority  of  the  religion  which  he  taught. 

As  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  set  forth  not  only  as  the  proof, 
but  as  the  pattern,  of  the  resurrection  of  his  followers ;  we  must 
regard  all  that  belonged  to  his  resurrection,  as  belonging  also  to 
theirs.  We  should  naturally  conclude  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints  will  be  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies  from  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  and  from  the  various  instances  of  actual  resurrection 
which  are  mentioned  in  the  history  of  both  dispensations,  and 
from  which  the  most  definite  idea  of  resurrection  was  derived. 
The  texts  which  have  been  cited,  and  others  which  might  be 
cited,  teach  our  doctrine  with  great  clearness.  What  other  con- 
struction can  be  put  upon  the  language  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 
upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  which  they  relate  ?  Specula- 
tive men  may  strike  out  a  theory  of  resurrection  from  their  own 
reason  or  fancy,  or  from  the  opinions  or  conjectures  of  others. 
But  if  we  seek  to  know  what  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  what  was 
in  the  minds  of  the  inspired  writers,  how  can  we  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion which  has  here  been  adopted  ?  But  the  evidence  of  our 
doctrine  which  appears  most  clear  and  conclusive  is  found  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  perfect  dem- 
onstration, that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  the  resurrection  of 
his  body.  And  the  Scriptures  teach,  that  the  resurrection  of  his 
followers  will  be  like  his  ;  that  they  will  be  raised  from  the  dead 
as  he  was,  and  will  have  a  body  like  to  the  body  which  he  had 
after  his  resurrection,  —  a  body  like  to  his  glorious  body. 

2.  There  is  another  point  to  be  particularly  noticed,  namely, 
that  tJie  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  set  forth  in  the  Scnptures  as 
a  future  event.  It  is  foretold  of  all  who  sleep  in  Jesus,  and  of 
all  who  are  in  the  graves,  that  they  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead. 
This  view  of  the  resurrection,  which  is  so  different  from  the 
teaching  of  Swedenborg,  is  revealed  with  perfect  clearness  both 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  How  can  any  one  doubt 
that  the  prophets  and  apostles  and  Christ  himself  had  this  con- 
ception of  it  ?  If  it  is  a  truth  that  the  resurrection  of  every 
man  takes  place  at  or  very  near  the  time  of  his  death ;  it  is  evi- 

22* 


'iiSS  RESURRECTION. 

dently  a  truth  whicli  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  inspired 
writers.  For  they  were  honest  men,  and  in  their  writings  ex- 
pressed, as  clearly  as  language  could  do,  the  conceptions  of  their 
own  minds.  And  if  they  had  regarded  the  resurrection,  as  the 
writer  ahove  mentioned  did,  they  certainly  would  have  told  us  so. 
But  they  have  told  us  the  contrary.  The  main  question  then  for 
us  to  answer  is,  whether  our  faith  is  to  rest  on  the  holy  Scriptures, 
or  on  the  writings  of  Swedenborg.  For  see  how  the  subject  of 
resurrection  is  treated  in  the  passage  before  cited,  John  5:  28,  29. 
"  The  hour  is  coning,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good, 
to  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  to  the 
resurrection  of  damnation."  If  it  had  been  the  fact,  when  Jesus 
Bpoke  these  words,  that  those  who  were  constantly  dying  were 
immediately  raised  from  the  dead,  and  that  all  who  had  previously 
died  and  had  been  laid  in  the  graves,  had  experienced  the  resur- 
rection ;  what  sense  did  he  convey  to  his  hearers  when  he  spoke 
of  the  resurrection  of  all  who  had  died  and  of  those  who  should 
die,  as  what  was  to  take  place  at  a  future  time  ?  The  hour  ia 
coming  in  which  all  who  are  in  the  graves  shall  rise  !  —  while  all 
■who  were  then  in  the  graves,  had  already  risen,  and  not  one  of 
them  was  to  experience  any  other  resurrection !  The  disciples  of 
Swedenborg  hold  to  a  spiritual  sense  of  Scripture  ;  but  they  hold 
also  to  a  literal  sense,  as  the  basis  of  the  spiritual.  They  doubt- 
less believe  that  Christ  really  and  Uterally  died,  and  was  Uterally 
laid  in  a  sepulchre  ;  and  that  men  literally  die.  What  then  is  the 
literal  sense  of  the  passage  above  cited  ?  What  is  it  for  those 
who  are  in  the  graves  to  come  forth,  some  to  the  resurrection  of 
life,  and  others  to  the  resurrection  of  condemnation,  in  the  literal 
sense  ?  And  what  is  it  for  them  to  come  forth  in  the  spiritual 
sense  ? 

1  Thess.  4:  16,  17.  To  comfort  believers  respecting  "  those 
who  are  asleep,"  meaning  Christians  who  had  died,  the  Apostle 
informs  them,  that  "  as  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so,"  that 
is,  after  the  manner  of  Christ's  resurrection,  God  will  raise  up  his 
people  from  a  state  of  death,  and  bring  them  with  Jesus.     In 


RESURRECTION.  259 

connection  with  this,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  those  who  mil  be  alive 
at  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  says,  that  they  will  not  be  received 
to  glory  before  those  who  are  asleep.  "  For  the  Lord  shall 
descend  from  heaven,  —  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,^* 
that  is,  previously  to  the  ascension  ;  and  then  those  who  are  raised 
from  the  dead,  together  with  those  who  are  changed,  "  shall  be 
caught  up  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and  so  shall 
be  ever  with  the  Lord."  The  events  here  mentioned  were  all 
future,  equally/  future.  You  may  as  well  say,  the  change  of  the 
living  saints  had  already  taken  place,  or  was  then  constantly 
taking  place,  as  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  had  been  taking 
place  in  all  past  time.  And  if  you  deny  that  these  things  were 
spoken  of  as  future,  you  may  as  well  deny  that  anything  was  ever 
spoken  of  as  future,  and  that  no  possible  forms  of  speech  can 
make  known  any  events  which  are  to  take  place  in  tune  to  come, 
and  that  all  the  predictions,  that  is,  the  seeming  predictions  of 
the  sacred  writers,  made  known  nothing  but  what  had  already 
occurred,  or  was  constantly  occurring.  And  if  you  do  this,  you 
may  as  well  carry  the  thing  through,  and  aflSrm  that  language  is 
without  meaning  or  use. 

Phil.  3:  20,  21,  is  a  passage  of  the  same  import.  "  But  our 
conversation  is  in  heaven  ;  from  whence  we  look  for  the  Saviour, — 
who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  to 
his  glorious  body."  2  Cor.  4:  14,  "  Knowing  that  he  who  raised 
up  the  Lord  Jesus,  shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus,  and  present  us 
with  you."  From  these  two  passages  it  appears,  that  the  Apostle 
first  recurred  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  the  third  day,  and  then 
looked  forward  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  at  the  coming  of 
Christ,  when  their  bodies  would  be  fashioned  like  to  his  glorious 
body,  that  is,  the  body  which  he  had  after  his  resurrection,  and 
with  which  his  disciples  saw  him  ascend  to  heaven. 

The  futurity  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  taught  very 
clearly  in  1  Cor.  xv.  The  Apostle,  speaking  of  the  resurrection, 
says ;  "  Every  man  in  his  own  order ;  Christ  the  first  fruits ; 
afterwards  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming."  The  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  the  third  day  after  his  death,  was  past.     The  resur- 


260  RESURRECTION. 

rection  of  his  people  after  the  pattern  of  his,  was  future.  It  was 
to  take  place  when  he  would  bring  his  mediatorial  kingdom  to  its 
consummation  and  close,  and  would  put  all  his  enemies  under  his 
feet,  and  when  the  Uving  saints  would  be  changed  instead  of 
dying.  These  texts  correspond  with  the  other  texts  quoted,  and 
show  with  all  conceivable  plainness,  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  will  come  to  pass  at  a  future  time. 

I  insist  upon  this  point  as  of  essential  importance,  in  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  on  which  I  have  animadverted.  If  that  doctrine 
be  true,  then  all  those  who  had  died  before  Paul  wrote,  had 
already  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  the  Apostle  committed  a  great 
mistake  in  charging  Hymeneus  and  Philetus  with  error,  in  saying 
that  the  resurrection  was  already  past :  for  according  to  the  doc- 
trine alluded  to,  the  resurrection  of  the  unnumbered  millions  who 
had  died  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  was  past ;  and  so  far 
Hymeneus  and  Philetus  were  right,  in  opposition  to  the  teaching 
of  Paul.  But  if  the  opinion  of  Hymeneus  and  Philetus  was 
erroneous,  so  was  the  opinion  of  Swedenborg,  who  held  that  the 
resurrection  of  all  who  had  died  before  his  time,  was  already  past. 
Hence,  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  resurrection,  the  main  ques- 
tion seems  to  be,  whether  we  shall  be  followers  of  Hymeneus  and 
Swedenborg,  or  followers  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 

One  of  the  questions  which  has  been  most  sharply  debated 
among  Christians  in  regard  to  the  resurrection,  is,  whether  the 
mme  body  will  be  raised.  Dr.  Dwight  says  ;  "  All  the  difficulties 
which  attend  this  subject  are  derived  —  either  from  extending  our 
philosophical  inquiries  beyond  the  power  of  the  understanding  — 
or  from  neglecting  to  settle  what  we  intend  by  sameness.''^  Now 
if  we  duly  reverence  the  sacred  writers  and  repose  implicit  confi- 
dence in  their  instructions,  we  must,  I  think,  come  to  the  following 
conclusions.  First ;  that  the  resurrection  will  b6  a  resurrection 
of  the  body ;  and  secondly,  that  the  bodies  of  the  saints,  when 
raised  from  the  dead,  will  be  very  different  from  what  they  were 
in  the  present  life. 

As  to  the  first  point,  we  have  seen  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was 


RESURRECTION.  261 

raised,  and  that  the  resurrection  of  believers  is  to  be  conformed 
to  his.  Paul  represents  objectors  as  asking,  "  how  are  the  dead 
raised  up,  and  with  what  bodies  do  they  come  ?  "  And  though 
they  put  the  question  in  such  a  cavilling  spirit  as  called  forth  his 
rebuke,  he  still  gave  an  answer,  and  taught  as  far  as  was  practi- 
cable, how  the  dead  are  raised,  and  with  what  bodies  they  come. 
The  body  will  be  raised,  as  the  body  of  Jesus  was.  But  the  body 
will  be  greatly  altered.     This  is  the 

Second  point  mentioned.  The  resurrection  body  will  be  exceed- 
ingly different  from  what  it  was  in  the  former  state.  The  body 
of  every  saint  will  be  Ms  body,  and  will  be  recognized  as  such. 
This  is  sufficient  as  to  the  question  of  identity.  The  body  of  each 
one  will  be  Ids  body,  and  he  and  others  will  see  it  to  be  so.  It 
•will  be  none  the  less  a  body,  and  none  the  less  Ms  body,  because 
it  will  be  so  altered.  A  man  who  is  raised  up  from  severe  sick- 
ness to  health,  has  substantially  the  same  body  which  was  lately 
emaciated  on  his  sick  bed ;  but,  in  many  respects,  how  altered ! 
The  alteration  in  the  resurrection  body,  the  Apostle  describes. 
And  the  description  is  sufficiently  plain,  and  gives  us  as  clear  a 
conception  of  the  resurrection  body,  as  we  can  expect  to  attain  in 
the  present  life.  And  if  any  one  should  make  out  a  description 
more  particular  and  exact,  and  more  gratifying  to  the  cravings  of 
curiosity,  would  it  not  be  likely  to  have  more  of  conjecture,  than 
of  fact  —  more  of  fiction,  than  of  truth? 

The  Apostle,  before  entering  upon  his  description,  refers  to  the 
difference  between  the  grain  which  dies  in  the  ground,  and  the 
stalk  and  grain  which  spring  up  from  it.  He  refers  also  to  celes- 
tial bodies,  and  terrestrial  bodies,  which  are  widely  different  from 
each  other  in  glory.  This  prepares  the  way  for  him  to  set  forth 
the  difference  between  the  body  as  it  will  be  at  the  resurrection, 
and  as  it  was  when  it  was  committed  to  the  dust.  He  shows  what 
a  new  character  it  wears.  "  It  is  sown  in  corruption  ;  it  is  raised 
in  incorruption."  In  the  present  life,  the  body  is  liable  to  disease, 
and  tends  to  decay  and  dissolution,  and  finally  turns  to  corruption 
and  dust.  But  when  raised  from  the  dead,  the  body  will  be  free 
from  sickness,  decay  and  death,  and  will  be  forever  incorruptible 


262  RESURRECTION. 

and  immortal.  —  "  It  is  sown  in  weakness  ;  it  is  raised  in  power." 
At  the  resurrection,  it  will  be  rid  of  all  infirmity  and  weakness, 
and  will  be  endued  with  an  unfailing  energy  and  activity,  which 
will  prepare  it  for  a  higher  sphere,  and  render  it  capable  of  going 
through  with  the  sublime  and  ceaseless  employments  of  the 
heavenly  world,  without  weariness  or  need  of  rest,  and  with  per- 
fect alaciity  and  delight.  In  that  better  world,  holy  love,  worship 
and  obedience  will  be  rest  and  joy  to  the  saints.  They  will  be 
strong  in  mind  and  strong  in  body,  like  those  celestial  beings 
"  who  excel  in  strength." 

"  It  is  sown  in  dishonor ;  it  is  raised  in  glory."  In  the  present 
state  the  body  is  base  and  uncomely,  compared  with  the  beauty 
and  glory  with  which  it  will  be  invested  at  the  resurrection,  and 
■which  will  fit  it  for  the  company  of  the  excellent  and  glorious  in 
heaven. 

"  It  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 
The  Apostle  does  not  say,  the  resurrection  body  is  spirit.  This 
would  be  inconsistent  with  its  being  a  body.  But  it  will  be  a 
spiritual  body.  It  will,  as  we  may  say,  be  spiritualized — will  be 
endued  with  something  of  a  spiritual  quality,  and  so  be  fitted  for 
the  spiritual  world.  The  natural  body,  that  is,  flesh  and  blood  in 
its  present  state,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  not 
adapted  to  such  a  state.  It  cannot  hear  the  music  of  heaven.  It 
cannot  relish  the  pleasures  of  heaven.  It  would  faint  and  die  at 
the  sight  of  the  glory  of  God.  "  Corruption  cannot  inherit  in- 
corruption." 

Such  is  the  instruction  which  the  Scriptures  give  on  the  present 
subject.  And  such  is  the  amount  of  what  we  know,  or  can  know, 
in  the  present  imperfect  world.  —  There  will  be  a  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  The  body  will  be  raised,  but  will  be  very  different  from 
what  it  is  in  this  life.  It  will  not  consist  of  flesh  and  blood  in  a 
corruptible  state,  as  it  does  while  on  earth.  It  will  be  incorrupti- 
ble, powerful,  glorious,  and  spiritual,  adapted  to  the  employments 
and  pleasures  of  the  heavenly  world.  The  same  will  be  the  con- 
dition of  the  bodies  of  those  saints,  who  will  remain  on  earth  at 
the  coming  of  Christ.  They  will  undergo  a  change,  and  will 
become  incorruptible,  powerful,  glorious  and  spiritual. 


RESURRECTION.  263 

You  must  have  observed,  that  in  all  the  passages  which  have 
been  quoted  from  the  Epistles,  the  inspired  writer  had  his  eye 
upon  the  resurrection  of  believers.  He  speaks  of  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  and  of  those  who  are  his.  He  speaks  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  those  who  "  sleep  in  Jesiis,^  and  of  "  the  dead  in  Christ" 
and  of  a  resurrection  which  will  be  glorious  and  happy.  But  in 
Matt.  25:  28, 29,  in  Dan.  12:  2,  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  gen- 
eral resurrection  is  very  clearly  foretold. 

I  shall  close  this  free  discussion  of  the  subject  with  a  few  re- 
marks of  a  practical  nature. 

1.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  while  the  inspired  writers  labor 
BO  assiduously  to  give  us  all  the  instruction  which  is  adapted  to  be 
really  useful  to  us,  the^  do  little  to  satisfy  our  curiosity.  There 
is  no  end  to  the  questions  which  may  arise  in  the  minds  of  specu- 
lative men. — What  is  the  exact  condition  of  the  souls  of  men  in 
the  disembodied  state  ?  How  do  they  see  and  know,  and  how  do 
they  converse  with  each  other  ?  How  do  they  differ  from  what 
they  were  in  this  life,  and  from  what  they  will  be  after  the  resur- 
rection ?  What  became  of  Lazarus  and  those  who  rose  from  the 
dead  at  Jerusalem  near  the  time  of  Christ's  resurrection  ?  Did 
they  die  twice,  and  will  they  have  a  second  resurrection  ?  When 
the  dead  are  raised  with  refined  and  incorruptible  bodies,  and  the 
living  saints  are  changed,  will  the  grosser  elements  of  their  bodies 
be  separated  and  left  behind,  or  be  transmuted  and  sublimated  so 
as  to  be  fitted  for  a  higher  mode  of  being  ?  And  how  was  it  in 
these  respects  with  the  resurrection  body  of  Jesus  ?  What  is  the 
case  with  those  bodies  which  have  been  devoured  by  animals,  or 
consumed  by  fire,  or  perished  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth  ? 
How  can  the  particles  which  composed  their  bodies  be  collected 
together  from  all  parts  of  the  world  at  the  resurrection,  and  con- 
stitute, in  whole  or  in  part,  those  bodies  to  which  they  once 
belonged  ?  Such  questions  may  be  multiplied  indefinitely ;  and 
the  best  thing  we  can  do  in  reply,  may  be  to  repeat  the  significant 
words  which  Paul  used  in  a  similar  case ;  "  Ye  do  greatly  err, 
not  knowing  the    Scriptures,  nor   the   power  of   God."      Such 


264  RESURRECTION. 

inquiries  do  not  concern  us.  If  thej  could  be  answered,  the 
answer  would  contribute  nothing  to  our  present  or  future  well- 
being.  But  they  relate  to  matters  beyond  the  reach  of  our  in- 
telligence, and  cannot  be  answered.  Happy  they,  who  are  content 
with  the  word  of  God  ;  who  beheve  and  practise  what  is  revealed ; 
and  who  are  thus  secured  against  doubt  and  perplexity,  and  filled 
with  light  and  comfort ! 

2.  Those  who  deny  the  common  doctrine  of  the  future 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  maintain  that  all  who  have  died 
in  past  time  have  already  had  their  resurrection,  and  that  all 
men  have  it  near  the  time  of  their  death,  —  those  who  main- 
tain this  are  chargeable  with  exalting  the  speculations  of  phi- 
losophy or  the  visions  of  enthusiasm  above  the  authority  of  the 
inspired  writers.  There  are  few  instances,  in  which  men  who 
entertain  a  serious  regard  for  revelation,  deviate  so  widely 
from  its  obvious  truths,  and  so  palpably  neglect  its  instruc- 
tions. 

Finally.  Those  who  imbibe  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  writers, 
must  regard  the  resurrection  as  a  great  blessing.  Who  can 
suppose  that  God  would  have  done  so  much  to  reveal  it,  and  to. 
assure  us  that  he  will  exert  his  omnipotence  to  accomplish  it, 
had  he  not  viewed  it  as  a  matter  of  great  moment  to  his  people  ? 
And  unless  inspired  men  regarded  it  in  this  light,  why  did  they 
hold  it  up  as  an  object  of  joyful  expectation  to  believers  ?  The 
happiness  of  the  saints  in  the  presence  of  their  Saviour  must 
be  indescribably  great  in  the  interval  between  death  and  the 
resurrection.  But  it  will  doubtless  be  augmented  by  the  resur- 
rection. To  attain  to  the  highest  good  of  which  we  are  capable, 
we  must,  it  would  seem,  be  perfectly  human  beings.  And  how 
can  any  one  be  perfectly  human,  without  a  soul  and  body  united  ? 
The  separation  of  the  soul  and  body  by  death  is  the  consequence 
of  sin.  But  Christ  will  deliver  his  people  from  sin  and  from 
all  its  consequences.  This  deliverance  will  be  completed  at 
the  resurrection,  when  they  will  exist  in  their  two-fold  nature, 
that  is,  with  soul  and  body  happily  united,  the  soul  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  the  body  incorruptible,  complete  in  all  its  powers 


RESUREECTION,  265 

and  sensihilitles,  and  fitted  to  cooperate  with  the  soul  in  all  that 
will  be  done  and  enjoyed  in  the  world  of  glory.  Such,  I  ap- 
prehend, is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.  And  the  faith  of  Chris- 
tians  will  be  correct  and  their  joy  will  be  full,  if  they  receive  the 
doctrine  with  simpUcity  and  meekness,  going  as  far  as  Scripture 
goes,  and  stopping  where  it  stops,  and  looking  at  the  resurrec- 
tion in  its  own  divine  light  as  an  object  of  desire  and  joyful 
expectation  during  their  mortal  hfe,  and  as  an  event  which 
■will  illustriously  display  the  infinite  power  and  benevolence  of 
God. 

How  different  from  these  views  of  the  Apostle  and  primitive 
Christians,  are  those  expressed  by  the  celebrated  German  phi- 
losopher, Kant,  who  thinks  it  can  be  no  kind  of  advantage  to 
us,  that  a  body,  however  improved,  "  should  be  dragged  after 
US  through  all  eternity."  With  the  same  anti-Christian  spirit, 
he  might  also  vilify  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  our  Creator 
in  giving  and  preserving  to  us  a  body  during  our  present  hfe. 
How  low  must  have  been  his  conceptions  of  the  marvellous  work 
of  God  in  creating  our  bodies,  and  his  still  more  marvellous 
work  in  raising  them  from  the  slumbers  of  the  grave,  and  mar 
king  them  hke  to  the  glorious  body  of  Christ !  And  what  a 
reckless  spirit  does  any  man  manifest,  who  can  look  without 
admiration,  and  even  with  contempt,  upon  God's  workmanship 
in  the  structure  of  the  human  body,  which  is  so  fearfully  and 
wonderfully  made,  which  is  such  an  honor  to  the  perfections 
of  God,  and  which  in  its  incorruptible  state  is  destined  to  be  an 
essential  part  of  man's  happy  and  glorious  existence  in  the  world 
to  come. 

We  find  that  the  Apostle  regarded  the  resurrection  not  only 
as  an  object  of  cheerful  hope,  but  as  a  motive  to  the  diligent 
discharge  of  duty.  Immediately  after  he  had  finished  his 
account  of  the  resurrection,  representing  it  as  the  final  victory 
which  Christ  would  give  his  people  over  the  powers  of  evil,  he 
applied  it  to  a  practical  use.  "  Therefore,  my  beloved  breth- 
ren,"—  "therefore,"  that  is,  seeing  you  look  for  such  an  event 

VOL.  III.  23 


266  RESURRECTION. 

as  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  completion  of  his  glorious  vic- 
tory in  the  resurrection  of  his  people  from  the  dead,  — "  there- 
fore—  be  ye  steadfast,  unmovable,  always  abounding  in  the 
work  of  the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  your  labor  shall 
not  be  in  vain  in  the  Lord." 


LECTURE     CVII. 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENDLESS   PUNISHMENT   DEPENDED   AGAINST 
THE    OBJECTIONS    OF   JOHN    FOSTER. 

It  would  be  a  very  pleasing  employment,  to  join  with  Howe  and 
Watts,  and  other  uninspired  writers,  and  especially  with  those 
who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  contempla- 
ting the  happiness  of  the  saints  in  glory.  When  the  believer  takes 
into  view  the  holy  employments  and  pleasures  of  the  heavenly 
world,  as  made  known  by  God's  word  and  Spirit,  he  spontaneously 
exclaims,  "  This  is  all  my  salvation  and  all  my  desire."  But  I 
shall  pass  from  this  subject  to  one  which  is  far  less  pleasing,  but 
which,  for  obvious  reasons,  calls  for  a  more  particular  considera- 
tion. The  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  has  been  made  a 
subject  of  much  controversy  among  those  who  profess  to  believe 
the  Scriptures.  And  as  the  whole  subject  has  a  direct  bearing 
upon  our  personal  interests,  and  upon  the  interests  of  our  friends 
and  fellow  creatures,  and  as  it  thus  comes  in  contact  with  our  self- 
love,  and  with  all  our  benevolent  and  sympathetic  affections,  it  is 
exceedingly  difficult  for  us  to  pursue  the  consideration  of  it  with- 
out some  improper  bias,  and  a  consequent  exposure  to  erroneous 
judgments.  They  therefore  must  be  considered  as  very  highly 
favored  of  God,  who  can  proceed  in  the  investigation  of  this  sub- 
ject from  right  motives,  and  on  just  and  Scriptural  principles. 
And  one  thing  to  be  constantly  kept  in  mind  is,  that  it  does  not 
belong  to  us  to  contrive  the  plan  of  the  universe,  or  to  settle  the 
principles  of  the  divine   government,  but  to  learn  from  the  word 


268  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

and  providence  of  God  what  those  principles  are ;  just  as  we 
study  natural  science,  not  to  fix  or  improve  the  laws  of  nature,  but 
to  find  out  what  those  laws  are. 

The  sacred  writers  generally  set  forth  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked  in  figurative  language.  And  they  evidently  do  this, 
because  such  language  is  best  adapted  to  express  their  own  vivid 
conceptions  of  the  evil  to  be  endured,  and  to  awaken  just  concep- 
tions of  it  in  the  minds  of  others.  It  is  nothing  uncommon  for 
guilty  men  to  attempt  to  relieve  themselves  of  the  painful  appre- 
hension of  future  misery  by  the  idea,  that  the  terrific  language  of 
Scripture  which  describes  it,  is  not  to  be  understood  literally. 
Whereas  no  words  used  in  their  literal  sense,  could  do  justice  to 
the  awful  subject,  or  adequately  make  known  the  strong  impres- 
sions of  the  writers.  And  it  is  apparent  that  no  single  metaphor 
could  fully  answer  the  purpose.  The  sacred  pen-men  therefore 
use  a  great  variety  of  metaphorical  language,  derived  from  the 
most  terrific  objects  in  nature,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  us  that 
the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  on  the  wicked  is  inexpressibly  dread- 
ful. Such  is  evidently  their  object ;  and  such  should  be  our 
object,  whenever  we  quote  their  language. 

But  it  is  an  obvious  fact,  that  while  the  inspired  writers  present 
the  subject  before  us  as  a  reality  of  the  gravest  moment,  they  do 
not  attempt,  by  a  minute  description,  to  give  us  any  exact  concep- 
tions of  the  particular  nature  and  mode  of  the  penal  inflictions 
which  the  enemies  of  God  will  hereafter  endure.  With  that  wis- 
dom which  is  profitable  to  direct,  they  leave  the  subject  wrapped 
up  in  an  indefiniteness  and  awful  mysteriousness,  which  is  ob- 
viously adapted  to  guard  our  minds  against  an  unbefitting  famil- 
iarity, and  to  inspire  us  with  an  active  and  enduring  dread  of  the 
threatened  evil. 

Many  authors  of  eminent  qualifications  have  successfully  defend- 
ed the  common  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  on  the  present  sub- 
ject, and  have  clearly  shown  the  inconclusiveness  of  the  arguments 
urged  against  it.  It  is  not  therefore  necessary  for  me  to  bring  for- 
ward in  detail  the  evidence  which  Scripture  affords  in  support  of  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment.     I  shall  here  pursue  the  discus- 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  269 

sion  with  reference  to  a  specific  object.     A  letter  was  written  bj 
the  celebrated  John  Foster  in  the   year  1841,  and  afterwards 
published,  on  the  subject  now  under  consideration.     In  that  letter 
the  popular  arguments  against  the  common  doctrine  are  exhibited 
in  the  most  impressive  and  touching  manner.     The  thoughts  sug- 
gested in  the  letter,  together  with  the  influence  of  the  author's 
name,  are  adapted  to  unsettle  the  faith  of  multitudes.     At  the 
present   day,  when  there  is  in  the  pubUc   mind  extensively  so 
remarkable  a  proneness   to  question   long-established  truths,  to 
undervalue  the   clearest  evidence,  and  to  look  with  favor  upon 
opinions  directly  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  revelation,  a  letter 
written  by  so  gifted  an  author  in  so  eloquent  and  attractive  a 
manner,  must  be  expected  to  produce  a  sensible  effect  upon  the 
interests  of  religion.     And  there  is  another  circumstance  which 
increases  the  dangerous  tendency  of  such  a  letter,  namely,  that, 
although  the  writer's  disbelief  of  so  important  a  doctrine  was  long 
known,  it  was  treated  not  only  with  lenity  and  indulgence,  but 
even  with  apparent  indifference,  by  his  Christian  and  ministerial 
brethren,  and  seemed  not  at  all  to  affect  his  reputation  or  influence 
as  an  orthodox  man.     For  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the  cause  of 
truth,  I  have  therefore  concluded  to  subject  the  leading  points 
touched  upon  in  this  letter,  to  a  careful  but  brief  examination,  and 
thus,  as  far  as  may  be,  to  assist  inquirers  after  the  truth  in  rightly 
estimating  the  value  of  the  considerations  which  the  letter  contains, 
—  which  are  in  fact  the  very  considerations  that  have  most  weight 
in  the  minds  of  men  against  the  common  doctrine. 

I  shall  set  forth  what  I  consider  as  mistakes  of  the  author,  under 
two  general  heads :  first,  mistakes  as  to  the  use  of  reason  ;  second^ 
mistakes  as  to  feeling. 

First,  as  to  reason.  Here  it  is  evident,  that  our  author  com- 
mits a  great  mistake,  in  looking  upon  human  reason,  as  a  compe- 
tent judge  of  the  divine  administration.  He  imposes  upon  reason 
a  task  which  it  is  by  no  means  able  to  perform.  And  after  com- 
mitting this  primary  mistake,  he  proceeds,  in  an  incorrect  use  of 
hia  reason,  to  frame  sophistical  arguments,  and  to  draw  conclusions 
which  are  manifestly  unwarrantable. 

23* 


270  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

The  most  plausible  argument  which  human  reason  has  ever 
framed  against  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  is  derived  from 
a  consideration  of  the  divine  benevolence.  And  this  is  the  argu- 
ment which  our  author  makes  most  prominent  in  the  letter  before 
us.  As  to  the  belief  of  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  he  says, 
"  I  acknowledge  my  inability  (I  would  say  it  reverently)  to  admit 
this  belief  together  with  a  belief  in  the  divine  goodness  —  the 
belief  that  God  is  love,  that  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his 
works."*  The  argument  is,  that  the  final  happiness  of  all  intelli- 
gent beings  must,  in  the  view  of  reason,  follow  from  the  benevo- 
lence of  God  ;  that  his  goodness  will  not  admit  of  the  endless 
misery  of  any  of  his  creatures. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  the  following  things  may  be 
laid  aside  as  not  belonging  to  the  question  at  issue,  because  they 
are  admitted  by  our  author,  and  by  others  who  reject  the  common 
doctrine,  as  well  as  by  those  who  maintain  it,  1.  That  Crod  is 
infinitely  benevolent.  This,  being  held  by  both  parties  in  the  con- 
troversy, makes  no  part  of  the  subject  in  debate.  2.  It  is  admit- 
ted by  both  parties,  that  the  Scriptures  are  divinely  inspired.  3. 
It  is  agreed,  that  sin  exists.  Accordingly  it  does  not  belong  to  me, 
any  more  than  to  my  opponents,  to  account  for  the  introduction  of 
sin,  or  to  prove  its  existence  to  be  consistent  with  the  goodness 
of  God.  4.  It  is  agreed,  that  man  is  a  moral,  accountable  being, 
under  law,  and  is  blamer-worthy  when  he  transgresses.  5.  It  is 
agreed,  that  the  penalty  which  God  has  affixed  to  the  law,  is  just, 
mid  of  course  may  be  justly  executed  upon  the  transgressor.  Our 
author  frequently  asserts,  that  sinners  deserve  to  suffer  a  severe 
punishment  and  that  for  a  long  time,  according  to  the  penalty  of 
fhe  law.  6.  It  is  agreed  that  all  the  sufferings  which  are  actually 
endured  by  sinners  are  consistent  with  the  divine  perfections  — 
that  whenever  endured,  they  are  in  conformity  with  the  justice  and 
benevolence  of  the  Supreme  Being. 

These  things  then,  are  not  to  be  debated.  So  far  we  have 
common  ground.     What  then  is  the  point  in  controversy  ?     It  is 

*  See  the  Letter,  in  the  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  Foster  by  J.  K 
Ryland,  London,  .1846,  vol.  11.,  pp.  404 — 416.     See  also  pp.  444 — 448. 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  271 

not  whether  God  is  good,  nor  whether  man  is  a  sinner  and  de- 
serves punishment,  nor  whether  God  is  just  and  good  in  punishing ; 
but  simply,  whether  the  punishment  will  be  without  end.  We  hold 
the  affirmative,  our  author  the  negative.  We  ground  our  belief 
on  the  declarations  of  Scripture.  Our  author  would  consider  the 
Scriptures  as  satisfactorily  teaching  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment, did  not  his  views  of  the  divine  benevolence  prevent.  As 
to  ourselves,  whatever  difficulties  arise  in  our  minds  respecting  the 
consistency  of  endless  punishment  with  the  goodness  of  God,  we 
overcome  them  by  our  regard  to  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  Our 
author  sets  aside  these  plain  teachings,  by  the  opinion  he  enter- 
tains of  the  divine  goodness.  He  says,  "  The  language  of 
Scripture  {^formidably  strong ;  so  strong,  that  it  must  be  an  ar- 
gument of  extreme  cogency  that  would  authorize  a  limited  inter- 
pretation." And  what  is  the  argument  "  which  presses  irresistibly 
upon  his  mind  ?  "  He  says,  it  does  not  arise  from  any  "  incidental 
expressions  of  Scripture,"  or  from  "  any  passages  dubiously  cited 
in  favor  of  final,  universal  restitution."  That  is,  it  does  not  arise 
from  any  texts  in  favor  of  universal  salvation.  "  It  is  the  moral 
argument^  He  is  overwhelmed  with  the  dreadfulness  of  a 
punishment  which  is  absolutely  endless,  and  concludes  that  the 
goodness  of  God  will  certainly  prevent  it.  This  is  the  main  argu- 
ment on  which  he  relies,  and  which  he  thinks  so  cogent,  that  it 
authorizes  him  to  give  a  limited  interpretation  to  the  language  of 
Scripture  which  is  so  "  formidably  strong." 

Here  then  we  come  upon  one  of  the  chief  mistakes  of  our 
author,  namely,  his  looking  upon  human  reason  as  qualified  by  its 
own  light,  to  judge  of  the  divine  administration.  I  acknowledge 
that,  if  we  were  put  to  the  task  of  determining  by  our  own  reason, 
independently  of  revelation,  whether  the  punishment  of  men  for  the 
sins  of  the  present  life  will  be  endless,  we  should  in  all  probability 
decide  in  the  negative.  But  it  would  be  manifest  presumption  for 
any  man  to  attempt  to  do  this.  No  human  being,  how  great  soever 
the  strength  of  his  reason,  is  competent  to  the  task.  To  enable  a 
man  to  judge  safely  and  truly  on  such  a  momentous  subject  as  this, 
he  must  have  the  following  qualifications.     He  must  comprehend 


272  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

the  whole  of  the  intrinsic  malignity  and  vileness  of  sinning  against 
such  a  being  as  God,  of  hating  his  character  and  attempting  to 
sully  his  glory.  He  must  comprehend  the  whole  amount  of  hap- 
piness which  sin  aims  or  tends  to  destroy,  and  the  whole  of  the 
mischief  which  it  aims  or  tends  to  do  among  intelligent  beings. 
He  must  fully  comprehend  the  bearing  which  God's  treatment  of 
sin  will  have  upon  the  interests  of  the  universe,  consisting  of  so 
many  miUions  of  worlds,  —  interests  which  are  so  dear  to  the 
heart  of  a  benevolent  Creator  and  a  righteous  Governor,  and 
which  he  will  be  sure  to  promote.  It  will  not  be  sufficient  for  him 
to  be  acquainted  with  benevolence,  and  to  know  how  it  operates,  in 
the  mind  of  man,  in  the  mind  of  a  father,  a  citizen,  a  legislator, 
and  a  judge.  He  must  know  what  benevolence  is  in  the  mind  of 
God,  what  perfect  benevolence  is  in  distinction  from  imperfect, 
and  what  infinite  benevolence  is  in  distinction  from  finite.  He 
must  know  infallibly  what  punishment  will  be  just,  that  is,  what 
will  correspond  exactly  with  the  ill-desert  of  sinners,  and  at  the 
same  time  what  will  promote  the  welfare  of  God's  moral  kingdom, 
which  is  the  object  of  his  benevolence.  In  other  words,  he  must 
know  how  justice  and  benevolence  are  united  in  the  divine  admin- 
istration. He  must  comprehend  infinite  perfection,  and  must 
know  how  infinite  perfection  will  act  itself  out  in  a  moral  empire, 
which  is  so  boundless  in  extent,  and  is  to  endure  forever.  All 
these  quaUfications  would  be  necessary  to  enable  a  man  to  form  a 
right  judgment  as  to  the  duration  of  future  punishment.  But  no 
man,  not  even  John  Foster,  with  his  brilliant  imagination  and  his 
profound  understanding,  has  any  one  of  these  necessary  qualifica- 
tions. "Who,"  says  the  Scripture,  —  "who  hath  known  the 
mind  of  the  Lord,  and  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ?  "  The 
things  of  a  man,  according  to  the  Apostle,  may  be  known  by  the 
spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him.  But  the  things  of  God  can  be 
known  only  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  What  should  we  say,  if  in  a 
Court  of  Justice  we  should  see  an  ignorant  man  proudly  place 
himself  in  the  seat  of  the  Judge,  and  undertake  to  pass  sentence 
upon  complicated  questions  of  law,  brought  forward  for  adjudica- 
tion ?    But  how  much  more  obvious  is  the  arrogance  and  foUj  of 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  273 

any  man,  who  undertakes  to  pronounce  judginent  upon  those  who 
sin  against  God,  and  to  decide  upon  the  punishment  which  they 
shall  suffer.  When  our  author  undertook  this,  he  was  out  of  his 
place.  It  is  God's  to  reign.  It  is  man's  to  submit.  It  is  God's 
to  pass  sentence  upon  the  transgressors  of  his  law.  It  is  man's  to 
learn  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  by  and  by  from  the  decisions 
of  the  last  day,  what  the  sentence  of  God  will  be. 

It  is  in  this  way  I  now  meet  the  argument  of  our  respected  au- 
thor. His  argument  is,  that  the  infinite  benevolence  of  God  will,  in 
his  view,  certainly  prevent  the  endless  punishment  of  sinners.  My 
reply  is,  that  no  man  is  qualified  to  form  a  judgment  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  wisest  man  on  earth  would  go  beyond  his  province,  if 
he  should  undertake  to  do  this.  For  the  wisest  man  is  of  yester- 
day. And.  though  he  may  know  how  the  limited  benevolence  of 
the  human  mind  will  be  likely  to  operate  ;  what  means  has  he  of 
knowing  what  infinite  benevolence  will  do,  or  will  not  do  ?  How 
does  he  know  what  is  necessary  to  give  support  to  law  and  justice 
in  God's  intelligent  universe  ?  Does  any  man  possess  any  one  of 
the  qualifications  which  are  necessary  to  prepare  him  to  judge  on 
such  a  subject  ?  And  if  he  attempts  to  judge,  is  it  not  to  be 
expected,  that  his  judgment  will  differ  widely  from  the  infallible 
judgment  of  God  ?  If  a  little  child  should  be  asked,  what  shall 
be  the  punishment  of  a  man  who  fraudulently  writes  a  note  ;  he 
would  doubtless  answer  very  differently  from  a  wise  legislator  or  a 
just  judge. 

This  method  of  solving  the  difficulty,  which  is  apt  to  arise  in 
our  minds  respecting  the  endless  duration  of  punishment,  appears 
not  only  short  and  easy,  but  just  and  proper.  I  at  once  say  to 
myself,  it  is  a  subject  which  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  my  faculties. 
I  am  not  qualified  to  judge  ;  and  I  therefore  refer  it,  as  I  do 
other  subjects,  to  him  who  cannot  err,  and  whose  ways  are  all 
just  and  true.  If  he  has  made  known  his  judgment  in  his  word, 
I  will  endeavor  to  learn  what  it  is,  and  will  quietly  acquiesce  in  it, 
being  sure  of  its  rectitude.  And  if  the  truth  on  this  or  any 
other  subject  is  not  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  I  will  cheerfully 
leave  it,  with  all  the  unseen  interests  involved  in  it,  to  the  decision 


274  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

of  his  righteous  and  omniscient  mind.  How  short  and  easy  would 
this  method  have  been  to  our  author !  And  from  what  told  and 
untold  doubts  and  difficulties,  from  what  painful  struggles  and 
afi^onies  of  mind,  and  from  what  perilous  conclusions  would  it 
have  preserved  him  !  And  what  peace  would  it  have  imparted  to 
him,  —  peace  passing  all  understanding,  flowing  from  his  dis- 
trust of  his  own  wisdom,  and  his  impUcit  and  unwavering  confi- 
dence in  God ! 

But  the  essential  error  which  I  have  charged  upon  this  distin- 
guished author,  calls  for  more  particular  consideration. 

His  argument  against  the  endless  punishment  of  the  wicked,  is 
grounded  in  part  on  the  idea,  that  such  punishment  would  be 
beyond  the  desert  of  sin.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  say,  it  is  grounded 
on  this  idea  chiefly.  For  I  suppose  he  would  not  consider  endless 
punishment  as  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  if  sin  were 
so  great  an  evil  as  really  to  deserve  it.  Surely  God,  as  a  good 
Ruler,  may  properly  inflict  a  punishment  on  offenders  equal  to 
their  demerit.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  sure  the  punishment 
will  never  exceed  the  demerit  of  the  offence.  The  ill-desert  of 
sin  is  then  a  material  point  in  this  discussion.  And  here  I  allege, 
as  before,  that  our  author  commits  a  palpable  mistake  in  under- 
taking to  judge  on  a  subject  which  so  far  transcends  the  limits  of 
the  human  mind.  And  it  is  not  strange  that  so  presumptuous  an 
undertaking  should  result  in  an  erroneous  judgment.  For  who 
ever  took  upon  himself  to  perform  a  work  for  which  he  was  essen- 
tially unqualified,  without  being  exposed  to  continual  mistakes, 
and  to  an  unsuccessful  issue  ?  It  is  clear,  that  one  who  is  com- 
petent to  form  a  correct  opinion  of  the  real  demerit  of  sin,  must 
have  a  perfect  discernment  of  what  sin  is  in  itself,  and  in  all  its 
relations  and  influences.  He  must  know  all  its  intrinsic  malignity 
and  vileness.  He  must  know  the  relation  of  sin  to  the  soul,  and 
the  whole  of  those  immortal  interests  which  it  tends  to  destroy. 
He  must  know  its  relation  to  God,  and  how  great  an  evil  it  is  to 
feel  and  act  out  enmity  to  so  great  and  good  and  glorious  a  Law- 
giver and  Euler.     He  must  know  the  relation  of  sin  to  a  world 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  275 

and  a  universe  of  intelligent  creatures,  and  its  aim  and  tendency 
to  propagate  its  own  pollution  among  them,  and  to  spread  disorder 
and  ruin  far  and  wide.  All  this  and  more  must  any  one  know, 
and  know  perfectly,  before  he  can  be  considered  competent  to 
form  a  right  judgment  of  the  whole  demerit  of  sin.  For  surely 
the  demerit,  the  ill-desert  of  sin,  must  be  in  proportion  to  its  own 
intrinsic  evil,  and  its  natural  aim  and  tendency  to  sully  the 
glorious  perfections  of  God,  and  to  destroy  the  blessedness  of 
immortal  souls.  And  the  punishment  which  is  required  must  be 
correspondent  with  this  intrinsic  malignity  of  sin,  and  must  be 
sufficient  to  counteract  its  deleterious  bearing  upon  the  moral 
creation,  and  in  the  end  to  turn  it  from  a  ruinous  to  a  beneficial 
result.  Who  among  mortals,  who  among  angels  and  the  spirits 
of  the  just  made  perfect,  has  so  clear  and  complete  a  conception 
of  this  whole  subject,  that  he  can  look  upon  himself  as  a  compe- 
tent judge,  or  can  with  any  show  of  propriety  rely  upon  the  deduc- 
tions of  his  own  reason  ? 

It  appears  moreover,  that  man  not  only  falls  so  far  short  of 
the  clearness  and  extent  of  knowledge  which  is  necessary  in  the 
case  before  us,  but  is  essentially  disqualified  by  his  evil  inclina- 
tions. A  perfectly  competent  judge  in  regard  to  the  demerit  of 
sin,  must  be  entirely  free  from  prejudice,  and  must  have  a  holy 
as  well  as  an  omniscient  mind.  Now  man,  every  man,  is  a  sinner. 
And  if  he  undertakes  to  judge  of  the  ill-desert  of  the  sinner,  he 
undertakes  to  judge  of  his  own  ill-desert.  And  thus  being  not 
only  destitute  of  the  requisite  knowledge,  but  subject  to  self- 
interest,  and  partiality,  and  the  blinding  influence  of  a  depraved 
heart,  can  he  be  expected  to  judge  righteous  judgment  ?  Is  it 
not  strange  that  we  should  ever  be  unmindful  of  that  sound 
maxim,  that  no  man  is  to  judge  in  his  own  case?  Whoever 
takes  upon  him  to  decide  on  the  guilt  of  sin,  must  be  supposed  to 
be  conscious  that  his  decision  has  a  bearing  upon  himself ;  and 
even  if  he  should  seem  to  forget  himself,  it  would  still  be  true, 
that  his  spiritual  discernment  has  been  obscured  by  sin,  and  that 
his  judgment  is  liable  to  be  influenced  by  his  earthly  and  selfish 
inclinations.     If  he  is  a  good  man,  he  has  indeed  been  convinced 


I2T6  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

of  sin,  and  has  seen  its  criminalitj,  especially  in  himself.  But  he 
has  seen  this  only  in  part,  and  has  never,  in  his  best  frames,  been 
■wholly  free  from  the  effect  of  sin  in  darkening  the  understanding 
and  blunting  the  moral  sensibilities.  So  that,  if  he  comes  to  the 
work  of  judging,  it  must  be  not  only  with  very  defective  knowledge, 
but  with  dispositions  and  feehngs,  which  disqualify  him  for  the 
work. 

It  is  moreover  manifest,  that  our  author  not  only  puts  reason  to 
perform  a  work  to  which  it  is  incompetent,  but  that  in  the  use  he 
actually  makes  of  reason,  he  is  chargeable  with  mistakes  which 
reason  itself  can  easily  detect.  For  example,  he  infers  from  the 
shortness  of  the  time  occupied  in  committing  sin,  that  the  duration 
of  its  penal  consequence  must  be  limited ;  in  other  words,  that 
there  must  be  some  proportion  between  the  length  of  time  spent  in 
sinning,  and  the  length  of  time  spent  in  suffering.  He  reasons  that 
endless  misery  cannot  be  "  a  just  infliction  for  a  few  short,  sinful 
years  on  earth." 

The  falsity  of  the  principle  here  asserted  may  be  made  evident, 
by  referring  to  events  which  take  place  under  the  divine  constitu- 
tion in  the  present  life.  How  often  does  a  single  violation  of 
moral  law  involve  the  offender  in  a  long  series  of  sufferings, 
extending  to  the  end  of  life  !  For  one  act  of  wickedness,  begun 
and  ended  in  a  few  moments,  a  man  may  be  deprived  of  all  that 
is  dear  to  him  on  earth,  and  be  condemned  to  perpetual  imprison- 
ment, or,  what  is  more  dreadful  still,  to  a  painful  and  igno- 
minious death.  This  mode  of  retribution,  which  God  has  ap- 
pointed, and  which  has  been  regarded  as  just  by  the  wise  and 
good,  shows  that  the  chief  criminality  of  an  offender  may  have 
little  to  do  with  the  time  spent  in  committing  the  offence,  and  that 
we  can  by  no  means  conclude  that  punishment  must  be  limited  in 
its  duration  because  of  the  short  duration  of  the  offence.  And 
yet  some  one  may  cry  out  against  the  injustice  of  such  a  principle, 
and  say,  what !  subject  a  man  to  the  loss  of  all  the  comforts  of 
life,  and  to  severe  sufferings  fifty  or  sixty  years,  for  the  act  of  a 
few  moments  !  But  it  must  be  so ;  and  justice,  both  human  and 
divine,  approves  the  measure,  and  may  appoint  the  longest  penal 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  277 

infliction  for  the  shortest  criminal  deed.  The  principle  holds 
especially  in  God's  moral  government.  To  discredit  the  common 
doctrine,  our  author  exclaims,  rather  rhetorically,  "  Millions  of 
ages  for  each  evil  thought  or  word  !  "  But  we  are  not  to  be 
governed  by  exclamations.  Do  we  doubt  that  angels  were 
banished  from  heaven,  and  doomed  to  suffer  "  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire,"  for  one  act,  the  vei-y  first  act  of  rebellion  ?  And  do 
we  doubt  that  there  was  an  evil  in  that  one  brief  act,  which  ren- 
dered such  a  retribution  just  ?  Do  we  not  know  that  for  "  one 
offence,"  one  single  act  of  disobedience,  committed  in  a  few 
moments,  Adam,  in  the  morning  of  his  existence,  was  excluded 
forever  from  Paradise,  and  that  the  "  one  offence,"  which  some 
may  think  so  small,  brought  penal  evils  upon  him,  and  upon  the 
countless  millions  of  his  posterity,  which  no  tongue  can  describe 
and  no  finite  understanding  fully  conceive  ?  Verily  God's  thoughts 
in  regard  to  the  ill-desert  of  sin  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  are  his 
ways  our  ways.  Thus  our  author  commits  a  general  mistake,  by 
attempting  to  determine  by  his  own  reason  what  is  or  what  is  not 
the  ill-desert  of  sin,  and  then  by  an  evidently  wrong  use  of  reason, 
he  falls  into  various  particular  mistakes. 

It  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  him,  that  the  exclamation 
above  cited,  which  is  so  fitted  to  make  an  impression  unfavorable 
to  the  common  doctrine,  may  be  turned  against  himself,  and  may 
be  used  to  discredit  what  he  himself  believes.  For  he  holds  that 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  the  future  world  will  be  of  a  very 
long  continuance.  He  says,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  that 
"  the  language  of  Scripture  on  the  subject  is  formidably  strong^ 
and  that  nothing  would  authorize  a  limited  interpretation,  but  an 
argument  of  extreme  cogency."  He  says,  too,  "  There  is  a  force 
in  the  expressions  of  Scripture,  at  which  we  may  well  tremble ; 
that  on  no  allowable  interpretation  do  they  signify  less  than  a 
very  protracted  duration  and  formidable  severity."  The  most  he 
dares  to  hope  is,  that  the  terms  everlasting,  eternal,  forever,  "  are 
used  to  magnify  and  aggravate  rather  than  define,  and  do  not 
mean  a  strictly  endless  duration."  He  seems  to  agree  with  Dr. 
Hartley  and  other  respectable  writers,  who  entertain  the  pleasing 

VOL.  III.  24 


278  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

idea,  that  all  sinful  beings  will  finally  be  restored  to  holiness  and 
happiness,  but  believe  that  their  punishment  will  be  for  millions  of 
ages,  even  so  long  that,  in  popular  speech,  it  may  justly  be  said 
to  be  everlasting,  forever  and  ever.  Now  many  persons,  less 
serious  and  less  mindful  of  the  authority  of  Scripture  than  our 
author,  will  be  very  likely  to  exclaim,  —  What !  thousands  of 
years,  yea  millions  of  ages  spent  in  misery  for  the  sins  of  a  short 
life,  perhaps  very  short !  Who  can  believe  this,  and  yet  believe  in 
the  goodness  of  GrodP  The  discerning  eye  of  Foster  perceived 
the  formidable  severity,  the  inexpressible  dreadfulness  of  future 
punishment,  taken  even  in  this  limited  sense,  and  he  trembled  in 
view  of  it.  But  in  this  case  his  reverence  for  the  word  of  God 
raised  him  above  the  difficulty,  and  induced  a  serious  belief  of  the 
tremendous  truth,  although  he  was  totally  unable  to  make  out  a 
rational  proof  that  sin  is  so  enormous  an  evil  as  to  deserve  such  a 
recompense.  How  happy  would  it  have  been,  had  he  acted  on 
the  same  principle  in  the  other  case,  and  had  cherished  such  a 
reverence  for  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  to  induce  a  cordial  belief  in 
a  doctrine  which  they  plainly  teach,  though  he  was  unable  to  com- 
prehend the  whole  evil  of  sin,  or  to  see  how  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture can  be  reconciled  with  God's  moral  perfections.  How  happy, 
if  he  had  kept  in  lively  remembrance,  that  the  human  understand- 
ing does  not  measure  things  as  the  divine  understanding  does  ;  if, 
instead  of  taking  upon  himself  to  judge  by  his  own  rational  faculties 
•what  God  can  or  cannot  consistently  do,  he  had  exercised  a  filial 
confidence  in  God's  rectitude  and  goodness  in  regard  to  the  future 
punishment  of  transgressors.  How  happy,  finally,  would  our 
author  have  been,  if  in  view  of  the  most  gloomy  and  dreadful 
disclosures  of  revelation  respecting  the  future  state  of  the  wicked, 
he  could  have  possessed  the  posture  of  mind  which  the  Psalmist 
had  when  he  said ;  "  The  Lord  reigneth  ;  let  the  earth  rejoice. 
Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him  ;  justice  and  judgment 
are  the  habitation  of  his  throne." 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  point.  Our  author,  we  have 
seen,  looked  upon  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  as  dismal 
and  appalling.     And  I  have  remarked,  that  the  doctrine  of  severe 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  279 

penal  inflictions  for  thousands  and  millions  of  years,  must  also 
have  appeared  to  him  dismal  and  appalling,  and  not  easily  recon- 
ciled with  his  notions  of  the  demerit  of  sin  and  the  moral  attri- 
butes of  God.  And  how  is  it  with  the  evils  consequent  upon  sin 
in  the  present  world,  which,  but  for  the  existence  of  sin,  had  been 
a  Paradise  for  mankind  through  all  their  countless  generations  ? 
What  is  the  miserable  condition  to  which  they  are  actually 
doomed  ?  Of  all  this  our  author  draws  a  very  dark  picture. 
He  says  to  one  of  his  correspondents  ;  '"  Are  you  not  sometimes 
invaded  by  the  darkest  visions  and  reflections,  while  casting  your 
eye  over  the  scene  of  human  existence  from  the  beginning  to  this 
hour  ?  To  me  it  appears  a  most  mysteriously  awful  economy, 
overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful  shade.  To  see  a  nature, 
created  in  purity,  qualified  for  perfect  and  endless  felicity,  ruined 
at  the  very  origin  by  a  disaster  devolving  fatally  on  the  whole 
race  ;  to  see  it  at  an  early  age  estranged  from  the  love  and  fear 
of  its  Creator  —  abandoned  to  all  evil  till  swept  away  by  a  deluge 
—  the  renovated  race  spreading  downward  through  ages  in  dark- 
ness, wickedness,  and  misery  —  the  grand  remedial  visitation, 
Christianity,  laboring  in  difficult  progress  and  very  limited  extent, 
and  soon  perverted  into  darkness  and  superstition  for  a  thousand 
years  —  at  the  present  hour  known  by  very  greatly  the  minority 
of  the  race,  the  mighty  mass  remaining  prostrate  under  the  infer- 
nal dominion  —  the  sum  of  all  these  melancholy  facts  being,  that 
thousands  of  millions  have  passed,  and  thousands  are  every  day 
passing  out  of  the  world,  in  no  state  of  fitness  for  a  pure  and 
happy  state  elsewhere.  0,  it  is  a  most  confounding  and  appalhng 
contemplation !  " 

Such  is  the  accumulation  of  present  evils  consequent  upon  the 
fall  of  man.  Our  author  admitted  their  existence,  and  mourned 
over  them,  and  was  confounded  by  them.  But  did  he  know  how 
to  reconcile  them  with  the  righteousness  and  benevolence  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  who  doeth  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own 
"will  ?  No.  He  owned  his  ignorance  ;  he  was  confounded  by  the 
contemplation  of  the  appalhng  subject  —  as  really  so  as  by  the 
contemplation  of  everlasting  misery.      But  however  dismal  the 


280  FtTtRE    PUNISHMENT. 

scene  of  human  degradation  and  suffering  from  the  fall  to  the 
present  hour,  he  uttered  not  a  word  of  complaint  against  the 
divine  government ;  he  whispered  no  suspicion  of  the  divine  jus- 
tice or  benevolence.  Now  whence  arose  the  difference  in  his 
treatment  of  the  two  subjects  ?  It  arose  doubtless  from  this  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  present  consequences  of  sin  were  objects  of 
sense,  and  could  not  be  doubted  ;  while  its  future  consequences, 
being  presented  before  him  only  in  the  way  of  divine  predictions, 
were  open  to  all  the  questionings  and  objections  of  unbelief,  and 
hence  were  not  admitted  as  a  matter  of  a  cordial,  undoubting 
faith. 

But  I  must  proceed  to  another  passage  in  the  letter.  The 
writer,  adverting  to  a  principle  of  human  legislation,  says ;  "  The 
man  tempted  to  crime  should,  as  far  as  possible  without  actual 
experience,  be  apprised  of  the  nature  and  measure  of  the  penal 
consequence.  If  it  be  something  totally  out  of  the  scope  of  his 
faculties  to  apprehend  —  it  is  unknown,  and  has  lost  its  appro- 
priate fitness  to  deter  him.  There  is  or  may  be  in  it  what  would 
be  of  mighty  force  to  deter  him,  if  he  could  have  a  competent 
notion  of  it.  But  his  necessary  ignorance  precludes  from  him 
that  salutary  force.  Is  he  not  thus  taken  at  a  fearful  disadvan- 
tage ?  "  The  author  applies  this  to  the  present  case.  He  says, 
— - "  The  threatened  penalty,"  —  that  is,  if  it  be  endless,  —  "  sur- 
passes in  imagination  every  intellect  but  the  Omniscient.  Might 
we  not  imagine  the  reflection  of  one  of  the  condemned  delin- 
quents suffering  through  a  milhon  of  ages,  to  be  expressed  in  some 
such  manner  as  this ;  0,  if  it  had  been  possible  for  me  to  con- 
ceive the  most  diminutive  part  of  the  horror  of  this  doom,  every 
temptation  to  sin  would  have  been  enough  to  strike  me  dead 
with  terror ;  I  should  have  shrunk  from  it  with  the  most  violent 
recoil." 

This  argiiment  is  aimed  against  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment. As  it  is  evidently  impossible  that  any  finite  mind  should 
fully  conceive  the  dreadfulness  of  everlasting  misery,  and  as  the 
subjects  of  a  just  law  must,  in  our  author's  view,  have  a  concep- 
tion of  the  whole  evil  involved  in  the  penalty ; "  his  conclusion 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  281 

is,  that  a  penalty,  so  mconceivablj^  dreadful  as  everlasting  misery, 
could  not  be  intended  by  the  divine  Lawgiver.  The  sophistry  of 
this  reasoning  is  quickly  seen.  It  is  indeed  evident  that  the  whole 
amount  of  endless  suffering  cannot  be  fully  conceived  by  the 
human  mind.  Nor  can  we  fully  conceive  the  whole  amount  of 
suffering  for  millions  of  years,  or  for  any  long  period.  Indeed  no 
man  can  fully  conceive  beforehand  what  it  is  to  endure  the  penalties 
which  sin  incurs  in  the  present  world,  as  the  privations  and  suffer- 
ings of  imprisonment,  the  horrors  and  agonies  of  dying  on  the 
gallows,  or  even  the  pains  and  distresses  of  the  more  violent  forms 
of  disease.  Hence,  on  the  principle  adopted  by  our  author,  none 
of  these  penal  consequences  of  sin  would  be  just  and  equitable, 
and  if  any  one,  who  has  only  so  imperfect  a  conception  of  them, 
should  be  doomed  to  endure  them,  he  would  be  "  taken  at  a  fear- 
ful disadvantage."  But  who  would  allege  this,  and  thus  be  guilty 
of  impeaching  the  justice  of  all  the  above  named  penalties  ? 

The  principle  adopted  by  our  author  implies,  that,  unless  we 
have  a  perfect  apprehension  of  the  evil  involved  in  the  penalty,  we 
are  left  without  suitable  motives  to  avoid  transgression,  and  cannot 
be  justly  held  accountable  for  our  conduct.  But  it  will  be  easy  to 
see  the  fallacy  of  this  principle,  if  we  attend  to  the  following 
things. 

1.  This  principle  would  be  as  really  opposed  to  the  limited  view 
of  our  author  respecting  future  punishment,  as  to  the  common 
view.  For,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  no  man  can  have  a  clear 
and  full  conception  of  future  misery  continued  for  millions,  or 
thousands,  or  hundreds  of  years  ;  and  then,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  our  author,  no  one  can  be  justly  held  accountable  for 
his  conduct,  inasmuch  as  suitable  motives  to  obedience  are  not  pre- 
sented before  his  mind.  In  this  manner  the  author  contradicts  his 
own  scheme,  as  much  as  ours. 

2.  Our  having  suitable  motives  to  avoid  sin  and  obey  the  law, 
does  not  by  any  means  require  that  we  should  have  a  full  conception 
of  the  whole  evil  involved  in  the  penalty  for  disobedience  ;  nor  does 
it  require  that  we  should,  "  as  far  as  possible,  be  apprised  of 
the  nature  and  measure  of  the  penal  consequence."     The  author 

24* 


282  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

refers  to  civil  goveniment  for  illustration.  T5ut  what  civil  govern- 
ment does  all  that  is  possible  to  make  the  subjects  sensible  of  the 
dreadfulness  of  the  penalty  by  which  obedience  is  inculcated,  or 
impresses  upon  them  the  motives  which  should  deter  them  from 
crime  with  the  greatest  possible  clearness  and  force  ?  Enlightened 
legislators  and  rulers  will  do  all  that  is  suitable  and  proper  to 
deter  men  from  crime  ;  but  they  never  do  all  that  is  possible. 
Besides  publishing  the  law  and  its  penalty,  it  would  certainly  be 
possible  to  employ  qualified  officers,  who  should  repeatedly  go  to 
every  family,  and  labor  assiduously  to  impress  every  person, 
whether  old  or  young,  with  the  meaning  of  the  law,  and  with  the 
dreadfulness  of  the  punishment  it  denounces  against  offenders. 
But  neither  the  justice  nor  the  benevolence  of  rulers  requires 
this.  They  will  do  all  that  is  fit  and  proper,  but  not  all  that  is 
possible,  to  deter  men  from  committing  offences. 

And  it  is  very  clear,  that  the  Supreme  Ruler  does  not  act  upon 
the  principle  of  doing  all  that  is  possible  to  impress  the  minds  of 
men  with  the  evil  consequences  of  sin,  and  to  deter  them  from  it. 
He  does  not  give  them  the  clearest  possible  conception  of  the 
punishment  of  sin  ;  he  does  not  hold  up  before  them  the  motives 
to  obedience  with  the  greatest  possible  power,  nor  does  he  exert 
his  omnipotence  to  the  utmost  to  render  those  motives  effectual. 
A  careful  attention  to  the  word  and  providence  of  God  will  show 
to  demonstration,  that  he  does  not  conduct  the  affairs  of  his  moral 
government  on  this  principle.  He  gave  a  particular  command  to 
Adam,  and  affixed  a  penalty  ;  and  a  dreadful  penalty  it  was. 
But  it  does  not  appear  from  the  sacred  records  that  Adam  was  as 
fully  informed  as  possible,  what  would  be  the  consequences  of  his 
transgressing  the  law,  either  upon  himself,  or  upon  his  posterity. 
In  the  revelations  which  God  made  to  mankind,  under  the  former 
dispensation,  did  he  give  them  the  clearest  possible  light  respecting 
the  evil  consequences  of  sin,  or  respecting  any  of  the  principles 
of  religion  ?  If  so,  what  need  of  the  clearer  light  of  the  gospel  ? 
And  if  the  Christian  Scriptures  have  made  known  the  divine  law 
and  its  penalty,  and  the  doctrine  of  redemption  with  the  greatest 
possible  clearness  and  force,  what  need  of  so  much  labor  on  the 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  283 

part  of  ministers  and  other  teachers  to  make  them  more  intelligible 
and  impressive  ? 

What  then  is  our  conclusion  respecting  the  principle  of  the 
divine  conduct  in  this  respect  ?  It  is  this  ;  that  God,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  own  unsearchable  and  sovereign  wisdom,  imparts  to  man- 
kind, not  the  clearest  possible^  instruction,  but  such  instruction  as 
he  judges  to  be  proper  respecting  their  duty,  and  respecting  the 
present  and  future  consequences  of  transgression ;  the  knowledge 
which  he  gives  them  by  means  of  his  works,  and  by  the  law  written 
on  their  hearts,  and  by  additional  revelations,  being  in  all  cases 
Bufficient,  unless  hindered  by  their  own  fault,  to  guide  them  in  the 
right  way,  and  sufficient  to  render  them  inexcusable,  and  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  against  them  just,  when  they  sin.  God  in 
his  providence  grants  different  advantages  to  mankind  in  differ- 
ent periods  of  the  world,  and  different  advantages  to  different 
individuals  at  the  same  period  ;  but  he  grants  such  advantages  to 
all,  as  to  make  it  their  duty  to  worship  and  serve  him,  and  to  ren- 
der them  worthy  of  punishment  if  they  neglect  it.  And  he  holds 
them  accountable  for  what  they  have,  not  for  what  they  have  not. 
In  this  way  we  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man.  To  pretend  that 
a  righteous  and  benevolent  God  must  give  to  all  mankind  the 
clearest  possible  conception  of  the  penal  consequences  of  sin,  or 
the  greatest  joossz6?e  light  on  any  subject,  is  plainly  contrary  to  the 
conduct  of  his  providence  and  to  the  teachings  of  his  word,  and  is 
inconsistent  with  the  methods  which  he  has  adopted  for  the  trial  of 
his  intelligent  creatures. 

There  is  another  mistake  of  our  author  in  the  passage  quoted. 
He  signifies  that,  if  men  had  a  sufficiently  clear  conception  of  the 
penal  consequences  of  sin,  they  would  avoid  it.  He  represents 
those  who  suffer  through  a  miUion  of  ages,  as  having  the  reflec- 
tion, that  if  they  could  have  conceived  the  smallest  part  of  the  horror 
of  such  a  doom,  they  would  have  shrunk  back  with  terror  from  the 
commission  of  sin  ;  whereas  it  is  far  more  probable  that  their  con- 
sciences will  reproach  them  for  abusing  the  privileges  which  God 
in  mercy  granted  them,  and  for  neglecting  the  reasonable  service 
■which  he  required  of  them.     They  will  see  that  the  cause  of  their 


284  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

perishing  was  not  the  want  of  more  light,  but  their  sinning  against 
the  hght  which  God  gave  them.  It  is  manifestly  implied  in  our 
author's  remarks,  though  he  was  not  aware  of  the  implication,  that 
sinners  themselves  are  not  so  much  in  fault,  as  the  providence  of 
God. 

It  is  moreover  implied,  that  if  they  had  been  favored  with  a 
clearer  conception  of  the  punishment  of  sin,  they  would  have 
been  effectually  deterred  from  the  commission  of  it.  For  a  cor- 
rection of  this  mistake  I  refer  you  to  the  parable  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus.  The  rich  man  requested  that  more  striking  and 
solemn  instruction  and  warning  might  be  sent  to  his  brethren  to 
prevent  them  from  coming  to  the  place  of  torment  where  he  was, 
and  he  was  confident  that  such  warning  would  have  the  desired 
effect  upon  them.  But  the  answer  was  ;  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  would  they  be  persuaded,  though  one 
should  rise  from  the  dead."  Now  those  who  live  in  Christian 
lands  have  not  only  Moses  and  the  prophets,  but  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  They  are  expressly  told,  that  the  soul  that  sinneth  shall 
die ;  that  indignation  and  wrath  shall  be  visited  upon  them  who 
obey  not  the  gospel ;  that  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving  shall  not 
see  hfe,  but  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  into  the  fire 
that  shall  not  be  quenched.  Now  we  may  justly  say,  if  men  are 
not  persuaded  by  these  instructions  and  warnings,  to  turn  from 
the  ways  of  sin,  neither  would  they  be  persuaded  by  any  addi- 
tional means,  or  by  any  clearer  knowledge  of  the  consequences  of 
sin.  The  fact  is,  that  no  external  means  and  no  merely  intellec- 
tual knowledge  can  ever  of  itself  be  effectual  to  make  men  obedi- 
ent and  holy,  and  that  the  lowest  degree  of  knowledge  and 
external  advantages  will  contribute  effectually  to  the  salvation  of 
those,  whose  hearts  are  right  with  God.  Truly  to  avoid  sin  is  not 
the  work  of  speculative  reason  however  improved,  but  of  a  re- 
newed heart.  A  selfish,  ungodly  heart  is  not  to  be  won  to  obedi- 
ence by  any  mental  conception,  however  clear  and  perfect,  of  the 
punishment  which  is  consequent  upon  a  life  of  impiety.  How 
obvious  then  is  the  mistake  of  our  author,  in  supposing  that  there 
is  that  in  the  penal  consequence  of  sin  which  would  be  of  force  to 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  285 

deter  men  from  sin  if  they  could  only  have  a  competent  notion  of 
it,  but  that  the  want  of  this  precludes  that  force,  so  that  they  are 
"  taken  at  a  fearful  disadvantage !  "  It  is  not  the  want  of  a 
higher  degree  of  speculative  knowledge,  but  the  want  of  a  right 
disposition,  that  destroys  the  soul.  Even  the  ignorant  heathen,  if 
they  observe  the  law  written  on  the  heart,  will,  the  Apostle  says, 
be  accepted. 

Again.  Our  author  shows  that,  although  he  had  by  no  means 
a  complete  conception  of  endless  misery,  he  had  a  solemn  and 
overwhelming  idea  of  the  dreadfulness  of  it.  And  was  not  this 
sufficient  to  constitute  a  powerful  motive  to  avoid  sin  ?  Did  he 
wish  for  a  more  solemn  and  overwhelming  conception  of  future 
misery  in  order  to  render  hi77i  accountable,  and  to  deter  Mm  from 
the  commission  of  sin  ?  And  may  not  others  who  will  seriously 
consider  the  subject,  have  a  like  conception  ?  And  with  this  clear 
and  alarming  conception  of  the  threatened  punishment,  can  they 
plead  that  they  have  not  a  sufficient  motive  to  obedience,  or,  if 
sentenced  to  endure  that  punishment,  that  they  are  taken  at  a 
fearful  disadvantage  ?  Does  the  author  think  this  would  be  the 
case  with  himself  ? 

The  writer  of  the  Letter  thinks  that  endless  punishment  is  alto- 
gether out  of  proportion  to  the  demerit  of  sin  committed  during 
this  short  life.  He  would  doubtless  admit  that  the  sinner  suffers 
justly,  so  lo^ig  as  he  sitis.  And  certainly  he  could  not  see  any 
disproportion  between  endless  sinning  and  endless  punishment. 
Now  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  do  not  sup- 
pose, that  any  one  will  suffer  longer  than  he  continues  to  sin.  But 
it  would  be  a  strange  thing  in  the  moral  world  and  totally  contrary 
to  the  essential  laws  of  the  mind,  if  any  one  should  cease  to  suffer 
while  he  continues  to  sin  against  God.  In  this  point  of  view,  the 
question  would  be,  whether  we  have  reason  to  expect,  that  sinners 
in  the  world  of  retribution  will  repent  and  become  obedient  to  the 
divine  law.  Now  this  cannot  be  looked  for  from  the  nature  of  the 
mind.  For  we  well  know  that  sinning  naturally  increases  the 
strength  of  the  sinful  propensities,  and  that  the  habit  of  sinning  is 
more  and  more  confirmed  by  sinful  practice,  and  so  renders  a 


286  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT. 

return  to  duty  more  and  more  difBcult.  It  is  certain  that  sinners, 
left  to  themselves,  will  never  turn  from  sin  to  holiness.  Can  we 
then  infer  from  the  goodness  of  God,  that  he  will  interpose  in  the 
world  of  retribution,  and  by  his  Spirit  renew  sinners  to  holiness,  and 
thus  prepare  them  to  enjoy  happiness  ?  It  is  clear  that  their  con- 
tinuing so  long  in  their  unreasonable  enmity  and  rebellion  against 
God  does  not  entitle  them  to  his  favor,  does  not  give  them  a  claim 
to  so  great  a  blessing  as  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  he 
bestows  that  blessing  upon  them,  it  will  be  all  of  grace.  Has  he 
given  us  any  assurance  that  he  will  do  this  work  of  grace  ?  Has 
he  made  any  promise  to  this  effect  ?  Can  we  then  conclude  from 
his  infinite  benevolence,  that  he  will  stop  sinners  in  their  wicked 
course  and  adorn  them  with  the  beauties  of  holiness  at  some  future 
period  ?  But  why  at  some  future  period,  rather  than  the  present  ? 
If  it  is  in  fact  consistent  with  the  infinite  benevolence  of  God  that 
man  should  be  left  to  act  wickedly  during  the  present  life,  why 
may  it  not  be  so  hereafter  ?  And  if  they  may  sin  for  a  hundred 
and  a  thousand  years  in  the  world  to  come,  why  not  longer  ? 
And  if  God  in  the  exercise  of  his  unsearchable  wisdom  has  good 
reason  to  leave  them  in  a  state  of  sin  through  the  present  hfe,  and 
for  a  long  period  hereafter,  may  he  not  have  equal  reason  to  leave 
them  in  that  state  perpetually  ?  Whereas  a  wise  and  benevolent 
God  has  suffered  so  great  an  evil  as  sin  to  enter  into  his  moral 
creation,  and  to  continue  in  it  so  long,  and  has  made  it  the  unwil- 
ling means  of  securing  so  much  glory  to  his  name  and  of  accom- 
plishing so  extensively  his  benevolent  and  holy  ends,  who  can 
predict  that  he  will  make  so  great  a  change  in  the  mode  of  his 
administration  as  to  put  an  end  to  sin  ?  Who  can  be  sure  that  he 
will  not  see  it  to  be  proper  to  suffer  its  existence  to  continue  beyond 
any  limited  period,  and  still  to  make  it  the  means  of  honoring 
his  perfections,  and  of  augmenting  the  welfare  of  his  great 
moral  empire  ?  If  you  say,  his  benevolence  requires  him  to 
exclude  sin  from  his  intelligent  system,  do  you  not  impeach  his 
benevolence  for  not  excluding  it  long  ago,  and  indeed  for  suffering 
it  ever  to  invade  his  intelligent  creation  ?  Or  if  you  do  not 
impeach  his  benevolence,  do  you  not  charge  him  with  the  want  of 
omnipotence  ? 


FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.  287 

In  regard  to  the  continuance  of  sin  in  those  who  die  impenitent, 
we  have  no  means  of  forming  a  just  opinion,  except  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures. And  here,  if  it  were  the  design  of  a  merciful  God  to  turn 
all  the  wicked  from  their  wicked  ways  and  to  make  them  heirs  of 
his  kingdom  at  some  future  time,  it  would  be  natural  for  us  to 
think,  that  he  would  inform  us  of  so  important  and  so  pleasing 
an  event.  But  he  has  given  us  no  such  information.  We  look  in 
vain  for  any  proof  that  God  will  bring  sinners  to  repentance  and 
carry  on  the  work  of  sanctification  in  the  world  of  perdition,  or 
that  there  Avill  be  any  dispensation  of  grace  after  the  present  life, 
which  is  the  accepted  time,  the  day  of  salvation.  In  all  the 
accounts  we  have  of  the  wicked  in  the  future  state,  not  a  single 
instance  of  repentance  is  mentioned,  and  not  a  single  intimation 
that  any  such  instance  will  ever  take  place.  On  the  contrary, 
we  are  clearly  taught,  that  the  state  of  the  wicked  after 
death  and  the  judgment  day,  will  be  unchangeably  fixed  ;  that  the 
mediatorial  kingdom  of  Christ  will  be  given  up,  his  work  of  saving 
sinners  being  closed,  and  that  "  everlasting,  forever  and  ever," 
will  be  stamped  upon  their  sinful  and  ruined. condition. 

Some  have  intimated  that  God  has  concealed  his  design  to  give 
repentance  and  pardon  to  sinners  hereafter,  lest  the  knowledge  of 
it  should  encourage  them  to  continue  in  sin.  But  how  have  they 
found  out  what  God  intended  should  be  a  secret  ?  And  if  they 
have  found  it  out,  why  should  not  they  conceal  it  for  the  same 
reason  that  God  does,  lest  the  knowledge  of  it  should  encourage 
men  to  Hve  in  sin  ?  Or  do  they  think  the  times  are  changed,  and 
that  such  knowledge  as  would  once  have  been  pernicious,  will  now 
tend  to  good  ? 

I  may  moreover  ask  them,  how  they  can  reconcile  it  with  the 
benevolence  or  the  truth  of  God,  that  he  should  not  only  conceal 
so  comforting  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  final  happiness  of  all,  but 
should  fill  the  minds  of  men  with  groundless  terror  by  declaring 
expressly,  that  the  wicked  will  be  punished  forever  and  ever? 

Our  author  adverts  to  the  idea  above  suggested,  that  endless 
punishment  will  be  evidently  just  for  those  who  will  forever  con- 
tmue  to  sin.     But  he  does  it  in  a  way  Avhich  betrays  the  unfor- 


288  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT. 

tunate  habit  of  his  mind.  He  says,  "  the  allegation  of  tlie  endless 
continuance  of  sin  is  of  no  avail  in  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment."  And  why  ?  "  Because,"  he  says,  "  the 
first  consignment  to  the  dreadful  state  necessitates  a  continuance 
of  the  criminality.^^  But  is  there  any  such  necessity  in  tliis  case, 
as  interferes  with  the  moral  and  accountable  agency  of  sinners,  or 
prevents  their  blame-worthiness  ?  When  God  in  the  present  life 
gives  men  up  to  hardness  of  heart  and  to  vile  and  abominable 
practices,  the  ill-desert  of  their  sins  remains  undiminished,  and 
increases  with  the  increased  number  and  heinousness  of  their 
transgressions.  And  yet  they  act  under  the  same  kind  of  neces- 
sity, as  the  wicked  do  in  the  future  world.  It  is  a  necessity  which 
consists  in  the  strength  of  their  culpable  and  hateful  dispositions, 
when  God  in  righteous  judgment  withholds  the  influence  of  his 
Spirit  and  leaves  them  to  their  own  chosen  way. 

But  our  author  says,  "  The  doom  to  sin  as  well  as  to  suffer  is 
inflicted  as  the  punisliment  of  the  sin  committed  in  the  mortal 
state.  Virtually,  therefore,  the  eternal  punishment  is  the  punish- 
ment of  the  sins  of  time."  Be  it  so.  We  hold  that  sin,  where- 
ever  found,  and  whether  continued  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time,  — 
that  sin  itself  is  so  great  an  evil,  that  it  does  justly,  according  to 
God's  holy  law,  deprive  the  sinner  of  all  good,  and  plunge  him 
into  a  state  of  endless  misery  ;  that  for  the  sin  committed  in  time 
he  is  righteously  doomed  to  everlasting  punishment.  I  say  sin 
itself,  in  this  life  brings  the  sinner  into  that  wretched  state.  He  is 
undone  as  soon  as  he  sins.  His  soul  is  lost.  This  plainly  arises 
from  the  very  nature  of  sin  and  the  nature  of  God's  holy  law. 
But  this  does  not  imply  that  the  sin  committed  while  under  con- 
demnation is  less  ill-deserving,  than  the  first  sin.  It  does  not 
imply  that  any  of  the  sins  committed  in  the  endless  state  of  sin- 
ning, will  go  unpunished.  Although  the  sin  here  committed,  even 
one  sin,  has  such  hatefulness,  malignity  and  destructiveness,  that 
it  does  justly  bring  the  sinner  into  a  state  of  never  ending  perdi- 
tion ;  and  although  all  his  sufferings  through  his  immortal  exist- 
ence are  related  to  the  sin  he  committed  in  time,  and  even  to  his 
first  sin,  and  come  as  a  sonsequence  of  it,  yet  this  is  not  their  onlj 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  289 

relation.  His  sufferings  in  the  state  of  retribution  are  also  related 
to  the  sins  there  committed.  It  cannot  be  otherwise.  For  the  sins 
then  of  this  life,  the  sinner  is  doomed  to  a  miserable  existence 
hereafter.  But  that  existence  is  rendered  more  miserable  by 
continual  sinning,  which  is  a  continual  treasuring  up  of  wrath. 
The  sins  of  this  world  really  incur  endless  suffering.  But  the 
sins  of  the  next  world  add  to  the  intensity  of  that  suffering.  Just 
as  it  is  with  future  happiness.  The  faithful  services  of  Christians 
in  tliis  life  secure  to  them  a  gracious  admission  to  the  blessedness 
of  heaven.  But  their  growing  knowledge  of  God  in  the  world 
above,  and  their  growing  holiness,  and  all  their  acts  of  obedience, 
must  secure  to  them  increasing  measures  of  enjoyment.  Every 
thought  of  God,  every  exercise  of  gratitude  and  love,  every 
benevolent  and  holy  action  Avill  be  in  itself  delightful  to  the  saints, 
and  will  constantly  add  to  the  amount  of  their  blessedness.  The 
endless  continuance  of  their  happiness  is  one  thing  ;  the  degree  or 
measure  of  it,  which  will  be  continually  increasing,  is  another 
thing.  The  same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  wicked.  For  sins  here 
committed,  they  will  be  doomed  to  a  state  of  endless  punishment. 
But  the  duration  of  their  punishment  is  one  thing ;  the  degree  of 
it  is  another  thing.  Any  number  of  men  may  endure  suffering 
through  endless  ages ;  while  the  suffering  of  each  may  in  de- 
gree be  different  from  that  of  the  others.  And  the  endless 
suffering  of  each  one  will,  in  its  measure,  correspond  to  the  meas- 
ure of  his  ill-desert,  or  the  amount  of  his  criminality.  At  the  final 
judgment,  they  will  receive  from  the  hand  of  justice  "  according 
to  the  deeds  done  in  the  hody.''^  Their  wicked  deeds  here,  will 
be  the  ground  of  the  irreversible  sentence  ;  and  according  to 
the  measure  of  their  Avickedness  will  be  the  evil  involved  in  that 
sentence.  The  doom  to  endless  punishment  will  be  dreadful  to 
all,  but  dreadful  in  degree  to  each  one  according  to  what  God 
shall  see  to  be  the  degree  of  his  guilt.  Such  according  to  Scrip- 
ture, will  be  the  entrance  of  the  wicked  on  that  perpetual  state  of 
misery  which  will  follow  the  last  judgment.  And  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  same  principle  of  retribution  will  be  carried  into 
effect  through  everlasting  ages,  so  that  the  measure  of  criminality 
VOL.  in.  25 


290  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

will  always  be,  and  always  be  seen  and  felt  to  be,  the  measure  of 
penal  infliction. 

One  thing  more.  We  have  seen  that  our  author  considers  it 
essential  to  a  righteous  retribution,  that  those  who  are  punished 
should  have  been  expressly  and  fully  apprized,  while  in  a  state  of 
probation,  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  which  they  were  required  to 
obey,  and  should  have  formed  a  just  and  adequate  conception  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  suflfering  implied  in  the  penalty.  Now  does 
not  the  author  overlook  an  important  principle  in  moral  govern- 
ment ?  I  grant  that  it  is  an  act  of  benevolence  in  the  Supreme  Ru- 
ler to  give  us  express  information  of  the  punishment  which  will  be 
incurred  by  transgression.  But  it  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible 
that  we  should  fully  apprehend  what  that  punishment  will  be. 
And  as  to  express  information  given  beforehand  in  regard  to  that 
punishment,  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  intelligent,  moral 
beings,  and  by  the  very  constitution  of  our  minds,  are  conscious 
of  good  and  evil,  and  of  the  ill-desert  of  transgression.  And  if 
we  had  been  left  as  many  are,  with  only  our  moral  nature  and  the 
law  written  on  the  heart,  we  should  still  have  been  justly  doomed 
to  suffer  penal  infliction  according  to  the  measure  of  our  offences. 
And  here  we  reach  the  grave  conclusion,  that  the  righteousness 
of  the  punishment  does  not  depend  essentially  upon  the  fact  that 
men  have  been  expressly  forewarned  of  that  punishment,  but  upon 
the  intrinsic  evil  of  sin.  God  says,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth  shall 
die."  This  threat  teaches  what  is  the  just  pimishment  of  sin. 
It  does  not  maJce  the  punishment  just,  but  implies  and  shows  that 
it  is  just.  Did  not  God  see  that  the  punishment  is  in  itself  just, 
he  would  not  threaten  it.  If  he  did  not  expressly  threaten  it,  he 
might  still  justly  inflict  it.  A  court  of  justice  pronounces  the  sen- 
tence of  death  upon  a  murderer,  though  that  murderer  has  been 
brought  up  in  ignorance  and  has  never  heard  that  such  would  be 
the  punishment.  Designedly  and  maliciously  killing  a  fellow- 
creature  is  itself  so  heinous  a  crime  as  to  render  the  death-penalty 
just,  whether  the  criminal  had  been  expressly  fore-warned  of  that 
penalty,  or  not.  So  any  court  of  justice  would  regard  it.  So 
especially  does  God  regard  the  transgression  of  his  law.     If  sin  ia 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  291 

committed,  if  the  moral  law  is  transgressed,  whatever  the  circum- 
stances of  the  transgressor,  he  incurs  the  penalty,  he  destroys  his 
own  soul.  We  may  doubt  the  justice  of  all  this.  But  God  is 
Judge,  and  will  not  be  influenced  by  our  doubts,  but  will  do  what 
he  knows  to  be  just,  and  what  is  just.  I  repeat  it  therefore,  and 
regret  that  our  author  overlooked  it,  that  the  justice  of  that  penal 
consequence  of  sin  which  is  set  forth  in  Scripture,  results  essentially 
from  the  intrinsic  evil  of  sin,  and  not  from  the  circumstance  that 
the  sinner  had  a  full  conception  of  that  consequence,  or  was  ex- 
pressly informed  of  it.  That  circumstance  affects  the  measure  of 
the  penal  infliction,  not  its  reality  or  its  justice.  Thus  the  word 
of  God  teaches  us  that  those  who  sin  in  heathen  lands  will  perish, 
as  well  as  those  who  sin  in  Christian  lands,  but  that  the  latter  are 
more  ill-deserving  in  degree  according  to  their  superior  advan- 
tages. 


LECTURE     CVIII. 


REVIEW  OF  Foster's  letter  continued. 

I  have  now  gone  as  far  as  seems  to  be  necessary  in  exposing 
the  mistakes  which  I  think  chargeable  upon  our  author  under  the 
first  head  proposed,  —  mistakes  in  regard  to  the  use  of  reason.  He 
mistakes  primarily  in  imposing  upon  reason  a  task  which  it  is  by 
no  means  competent  to  perform.  And  then,  while  he  applies  reason 
to  matters  which  may  seem  to  lie  within  its  province,  he  commits 
various  mistakes,  which  reason  itself  is  able  to  detect. 

I  now  proceed,  in  the  second  place,  as  proposed,  to  point  out  the 
mistakes  of  our  author  as  to  feeling.  And  here  pursuing  the  same 
general  plan  as  under  the  former  head,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show, 
that  the  author  puts  feeling  to  do  what  is  out  of  its  province, 
namely,  to  determine  what  shall  or  shall  not  be  the  penalty  for 
transgressing  the  divine  law,  or  what  measure  and  duration  of 
punishment  may  be  justly  inflicted  on  the  wicked  in  the  future 
world.  Any  discerning  reader  of  his  letter  will  see  that  he  does, 
in  a  considerable  degree,  make  his  humane  and  sympathetic  feel- 
ings the  basis  of  his  judgment  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment.  When  he  thinks  of  the  wicked  enduring  misery 
without  end,  his  feelings  revolt  from  it,  his  benevolent  heart  sinks 
under  the  idea,  and  says,  it  is  too  dreadful,  —  a  God  of  love  can- 
not inflict  it. 

Here  then  I  maintain  that  hwrndiXi  feeling  is  no  fit  standard  by 
which  to  determine  the  punishment  that  shall  be  executed  upon 
sinners.     If  human   reason  is  not   competent  to   fix  the   right 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  293 

measure  of  penal  infliction  for  the  transgression  of  the  divine  law, 
human  feeling  is  far  less  competent.  Benevolent  and  sympathetic 
feeUng  is  given  us  for  exceedingly  important  purposes,  and  when 
properly  regulated  and  kept  within  its  proper  sphere,  it  has  a 
mighty  and  indispensable  influence  in  promoting  our  happiness. 
Without  it  man  would  not  be  man.  He  would  want  one  of  the 
chief  elements  of  humanity.  But  if  it  sets  itself  up  as  a  rule  of 
the  divine  administration,  it  goes  out  of  its  province,  —  it  inter- 
feres with  the  prerogative  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  produces 
disorder  and  mischief  in  the  moral  world. 

The  tender  and  sympathetic  feelings  do  not  constitute  a  safe 
and  proper  rule  for  the  government  even  of  domestic  society. 
The  feelings  of  an  affectionate  father,  if  consulted,  would  often 
prevent  him  from  administering  that  chastisement  which  the  wel- 
fare of  his  children  requires  ;  and  he  must  resist,  and  sometimes 
even  sacrifice,  the  tender  emotions  of  his  heart,  in  order  to  fulfil 
an  imperative  parental  duty.  And  it  is  evident  that  human  feel- 
ing is  still  further  from  being  a  safe  and  proper  rule  of  civil 
government.  When  aggravated  crimes  are  perpetrated,  and  the 
most  terrible  penalties  are  incurred,  by  men  who  were  once  the 
objects  of  public  esteem  and  confidence,  what  would  become  of 
the  majesty  of  the  law,  and  what  of  the  sacred  principle  of  jus- 
tice, if  the  decisions  of  our  Courts  should  be  controlled  by  the 
emotions  of  sympathy  and  compassion  ?  Law  and  justice  would 
be  prostrated,  crimes  would  be  licensed,  disorder  would  prevail, 
and  the  bonds  of  civil  society  be  dissolved. 

And  if  the  government  of  mere  feeling,  instead  of  law  and 
justice  and  a  regard  to  the  general  good,  would  be  so  incompati- 
ble with  the  permanent  order  and  happiness  of  civil  society  ;  how 
much  more  incompatible  would  it  be  with  the  order  and  happiness 
of  G-od's  great  moral  empire  !  The  influence  of  law,  the  exercise 
of  strict  justice,  and  a  wise  regard  to  the  general  welfare,  are 
important  in  any  society  or  kingdom,  in  proportion  to  its  extent  and 
the  value  of  its  public  and  private  interests.  How  indescribably 
important  then  is  it,  that  they  should  prevail  and  bear  sway  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  which  comprehends  unnumbered  worlds,  and  is 

25* 


294  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

to  endure  through  endless  ages  !  Mere  feeling^  feeling  in  the 
heart  of  man,  is  very  limited  in  its  aims,  and  generally  regards 
merely  the  well  heing  of  particular  individuals,  and  is  utterly 
incapable  of  any  suitable  action  in  relation  to  the  permanent  wel- 
fare of  the  kingdom  of  God,  —  which  is  so  vast,  that  nothing 
short  of  his  infinite  mind  can  take  an  adequate  view  of  its  extent 
or  its  duration.  God's  infinite  mind  is  perfectly  wise  and  holy,  as 
well  as  benevolent.  God  is  love ;  but  divine  love  is  united  with 
wisdom  and  righteousness  and  power,  and  these  with  all  other 
attributes,  combined  together,  constitute  the  absolute  perfection 
of  the  Supreme  Lawgiver  and  Ruler,  and  quahfy  him  to  sit  on  his 
high  and  holy  throne.  But  how  presumptuous  and  impious  it  is 
for  mere  feeling  in  the  little  mind  of  man  to  arrogate  to  itself  the 
right  to  form  a  judgment  on  the  measures  necessary  in  the  divine 
administration,  much  more  to  place  itself  in  opposition  to  the 
penal  sanctions  which  God  has  expressly  affixed  to  his  law,  and  to 
the  punishment  which  he  has  begun  to  inflict,  and  which  he  has 
plainly  told  us  is  to  be  continued  forever !  Giod  himself  some- 
times condescends  to  speak  to  us  after  the  manner  of  man,  and 
solemnly  declares  to  us  that  he  has  the  most  kuid,  compassionate 
feeling.  "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the 
death  of  the  wicked ;  —  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of 
Israel  ?  "  And  Jesus  wept,  in  view  of  the  wickedness  and 
approaching  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  and  said,  "  How  often  would  I 
have  gathered  thy  children  together,  —  0  that  thou  hadst  known 
the  things  which  belong  to  thy  peace  !  "  But  God  did  not  govern 
his  conduct  by  this  feeling  of  good  will  and  compassion  towards 
the  persons  of  the  wicked,  and  by  this  reluctance,  so  to  speak,  to 
inflict  punishment  upon  them.  Notwithstanding  the  strong  emo- 
tions of  benevolence  and  pity  which  arose  in  his  heart  towards 
unrepenting  sinners,  he  withheld  not  his  hand  from  executing  the 
threatened  punishment.  He  showed  himself  just  and  faithful  and 
holy,  as  well  as  merciful.  He  supported  the  majesty  of  law 
and  justice ;  and  although  he  gave  perfect  assurance  that  he  did 
not  act  from  anything  like, hardness  of  heart  and  the  spirit  of 
revenge  among  men,  he  executed  upon  the  wicked  who  refused  to 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  295 

turn,  the  full  penalty  of  his  law.  Jesus,  the  compassionate 
Saviour,  acted  on  the  same  principle.  For  though  he  was  a  man, 
and  had  in  perfection  all  the  kind  and  pitiful  feelings  of  man's 
heart,  and  did  what  no  other  man  did  to  save  sinners  from  perdi- 
tion, his  holy  administration  was  not  swayed  by  his  kind  and  piti- 
ful feelings.  He  had  also,  in  perfection,  the  superior  principle  of 
inflexible  justice,  inflexible  attachment  to  law,  love  of  holiness, 
abhorrence  of  sin,  and  a  supreme  regard  to  the  permanent  inte- 
rests of  the  universe,  and  to  the  glory  of  the  divine  attributes. 
These  principles,  in  connection  with  his  mercy,  were  set  forth  in 
his  public  instructions,  especially  when  he  denounced  the  judg- 
ments of  heaven  upon  those  who  rejected  him,  and  foretold  the 
everlasting  punishment  which  he  himself,  the  benevolent,  com- 
passionate Saviour,  as  well  as  the  righteous  Judge,  will  inflict 
upon  all  who  live  and  die  in  sin. 

Here  is  a  lesson  which  we  ought  all  to  learn,  —  a  principle 
which  we  ought  to  keep  in  vivid  recollection,  whenever  we  turn 
our  attention  to  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 
For  if  kind,  sympathetic  feehng  even  in  the  heart  of  Jesus  and  in 
the  heart  of  God,  does  not,  by  itself,  control  the  measures  of 
his  moral  government,  surely  we  can  never  think  our  feeling 
competent  to  do  it.  And  if  benevolence  and  sympathy,  existing 
in  consummate  perfection  in  the  divine  mind,  or  in  the  mind  of 
Jesus,  do  not  object  to  the  infliction  of  the  dreadful  punishment 
incurred  by  sin  ;  the  narrow  benevolence  and  imperfect  sympathy 
existing  in  our  mind  should  be  very  far  from  making  any  objec- 
tion. And  if  divine  benevolence  and  pity  freely  and  fully  co- 
operate with  justice,  wisdom,  and  holiness,  in  executing  the  fear- 
ful penalty  of  the  law  upon  transgressors,  shall  we  be  influenced 
by  our  feeble  benevolence  and  pity,  I  might  rather  say  by  our 
weakness^  to  object  to  the  execution  of  that  penalty,  and  to  dissent 
from  those  high  principles  of  God's  moral  government  ?  Human 
benevolence  and  sympathy,  though  they  should  be  found  in  one 
who  possesses  the  most  enlarged  understanding  in  connection  with 
perfect  holiness,  would  be  exceedingly  out  of  their  proper  place, 
and  would  assume  a  business  for  which  they  are  totally  unfit,  if 


296  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

they  should  attempt  in  any  way  to  interfere  with  God's  holy 
government,  or  do  anything  in  regard  to  the  most  mysterious  and 
even  the  most  severe  and  appalling  acts  of  his  administration,  but 
readily  to  acquiesce,  yielding  to  that  sovereign  behest,  "  Be  still, 
and  know  that  I  am  God."  Such  is  the  practical  judgment  of 
the  best  of  men  in  regard  to  the  affairs  of  the  present  life. 
They  are  fully  aware  that  their  natural  sensibilities  are  not  given 
them  to  guide  the  events  of  providence  ;  and  as  soon  as  they  dis- 
cover what  the  will  of  God  is,  they  at  once  submit.  Thus  did 
Aaron,  in  view  of  events  which  were  distressing  to  his  natural 
affections.  Thus  did  the  friends  of  Paul,  who,  under  the  influence 
of  the  tenderest  affection  and  sympathy,  endeavored  to  dissuade 
him  from  exposing  himself  to  suffering,  but  soon  yielded  to  a 
superior  wisdom,  and  said,  "  The  will  of  the  Lord  be  done." 
Christians  learn  more  and  more  perfectly  this  lesson  of  self- 
distrust  and  pious  submission  in  regard  to  all  the  concerns  of 
life.  They  have  less  and  less  confidence  in  their  own  judgment, 
and  are  less  and  less  inclined  to  regard  their  own  feelings,  even 
those  which  are  the  most  kind  and  sympathetic,  as  competent  to 
determine  what  shall  be  the  measures  of  divine  providence,  even 
in  respect  to  the  interests  of  the  present  world.  And  in  respect 
to  God's  future  administration  in  his  vast  moral  kingdom.  Chris- 
tians possessing  right  habits  of  thought  and  feeling,  would  shrink 
back  at  the  idea  that  their  own  affections  and  sympathies,  however 
unexceptionable  in  themselves,  are  to  determine  what  God's  dis- 
pensations shall  be,  or  to  have  any  concern  with  them,  except  to 
confide  in  them  and  conform  to  them,  as  holy,  just,  and  good. 

And  if  the  best  regulated  feelings,  the  feelings  of  those  who 
possess  the  most  elevated  piety,  whose  "  meditations  of  God  are 
sweet,"  and  who  have  attained  to  habitual  peace  and  joy  in 
beUeving,  —  if  the  feehngs  even  of  such  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
a  rule  of  the  divine  conduct  in  the  future  world,  or  as  at  all  com- 
petent to  determine  what  punishment  the  wicked  shall  endure  ; 
what  shall  we  say  of  such  feelings  as  unhappily  prevailed  in  the 
mind  of  our  author?  The  account  which  he  gives  of  himself 
shows,  that  either  from  a  disorder  in  his  physical  constitution,  or 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  297 

from  the  want  of  a  more  thorough  religious  experience,  or  from 
some  other  cause,  he  was  the  subject  of  great  depression  and 
gloom.  It  was  not  merely  the  future  punishment  of  his  fellow- 
creatures  that  was  to  him  the  subject  of  melancholy  and  distres- 
sing reflections.  The  whole  economy  of  God  in  this  world  as  well 
as  the  next,  was  overspread  with  darkness  and  horror.  The 
dismal  state  of  his  own  mind  cast  a  dismal  shade  upon  the  dispen- 
sations of  divine  providence.  He  dwelt  upon  such  topics  as 
these.  "  The  immensely  greater  number  of  the  human  race 
hitherto,  through  all  ages  and  regions,  passing  a  short  Hfe  under 
no  illuminating,  transforming  influence  of  their  Creator,  —  passing 
ofi"  the  world  in  a  state  unfit  for  a  spiritual,  heavenly,  and  happy 
kingdom  elsewhere  !  "  And  then,  "  how  profoundly  mysterious 
is  the  slow  progress  "  of  the  gospel  "  in  its  uncorrupted  purity 
and  saving  eflficacy  !  "  He  cast  his  view  over  the  scene  of  human 
existence  from  the  beginning,  and  said  ;  "  To  me  it  appears  a 
most  mysteriously  awful  economy,  overspread  by  a  lurid  and 
dreadful  shade.  I  pray  for  piety  to  maintain  a  humble  submis- 
sion of  thought  and  feeling  to  the  wise  and  righteous  Disposer  of 
all  existence.  But  to  see  a  nature  created  in  purity  and  quali- 
fied for  endless  felicity,  ruined  at  the  very  origin,  by  a  disaster 
devolving  fatally  on  all  the  race,  et  cetera,"  —  the  sum  of  all 
these  melancholy  facts  being,  that  thousands  of  millions  have 
passed,  and  thousands  every  day  are  passing  out  of  the  world,  in 
no  fitness  for  a  pure  and  happy  state  elsewhere,  —  "  0,  it  is  a 
most  confounding  and  appalling  contemplation  !  "  It  was  to  him 
all  dark  and  direful.  In  the  view  of  the  Psalmist,  the  heavens 
declared  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  earth  was  full  of  his  riches. 
The  trees  and  mountains,  birds  and  beasts,  and  all  things  around 
him,  were  vocal  with  God's  praise.  He  saw  the  wickedness  of 
human  beings,  and  rivers  of  water  ran  down  his  eyes,  because 
they  kept  not  God's  law ;  but  he  had  other  and  higher  views  ;  and 
he  could  say,  "  God  is  my  rock,  his  work  is  perfect,  all  his  ways 
are  truth  and  judgment."  But  how  diflferent  were  the  predomi- 
nant feelings  of  our  author  !  —  When  Jesus  contemplated  the  dis- 
pensations of  God's  sovereign  mercy  and  righteousness  towards 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENt. 

the  different  characters  of  men,  he  rejoiced  in  spirit,  and 
Said,  "  I  thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and 
revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thj  sight."  And  the  apostles  and  early  Christians,  in 
the  midst  of  the  sins  and  miseries  of  this  apostate  world  and  their 
own  trials  and  sufferings,  rejoiced  in  the  Lord  with  unspeakable 
joy.  And  when  Paul  contemplated  the  fall  of  Adam  and  the 
degradation  and  ruin  of  his  posterity,  he  kept  his  eye  upon  that 
which  was  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance  all  the  evil.  He 
beheld  a  divine  glory  shining  forth  from  the  midst  of  the  darkness 
—  the  glory  of  infinite  love  towards  the  redeemed.  He  saw  that, 
where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound.  With  a  clear 
view  of  this  rebellious  and  miserable  world,  he  could  bless  God, 
and  could  praise  his  holy  name,  and  could  rejoice  and  glory  in  a 
crucified  Redeemer.  To  these  elevated,  happy  views  and  feelings, 
our  amiable  and  ingenious  author  seems  to  have  been  almost  a 
stranger.  His  pathway  through  life  was  enveloped  in  gloom,  —  a 
dense  gloom,  seldom  if  ever  penetrated  by  the  light  of  heaven. 
All  that  was  bright  and  cheering  was  hidden  from  his  view,  and 
his  thoughts  were  engrossed  with  what  was  dark  and  dismal.  I 
say  then,  if  men  whose  minds  were  full  of  hght  and  peace  and 
joy,  never  thought  of  regarding  their  feelings  as  a  fit  rule  of  the 
divine  dispensations,  or  a  judge  of  the  measure  of  punishment 
which  should  be  visited  upon  the  wicked  ;  surely  one  whose  tem- 
perament was  so  unhealthy,  and  wdiose  mind  was  subject  to  so 
morbid  a  sensitiveness,  should  never  have  suffered  his  feelings  to 
control  his  faith,  or  to  thrust  themselves  in  as  a  rule  of  God's 
retributive  justice  towards  his  incorrigible  enemies.  If  such  feel- 
ings should  be  predominant  in  the  minds  of  Christians,  how  could 
they  obey  the  gospel  precept,  to  rejoice  and  give  thanks  con- 
tinually ?  How  could  they  love  God  with  all  their  hearts,  when 
his  moral  excellence  and  glory  were  veiled  from  their  view  ?  How 
could  they  rejoice  that  God  is  on  the  throne,  when  they  could  see 
nothing  there  but  clouds  and  darkness,  without  any  rays  of 
heavenly  hght?     How  could  they  take  pleasure  in  the  holiness 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  299 

and  happiness  of  those  who  are  saved,  when  thej  could  do  nothing 
but  pore  over  the  severe  and  dismal  destiny  of  the  lost  ?    Through 
the  influence  of  an  excessive  and  perverted  sympathy  and  a  kind 
of  morbid  generosity,  they  would  hardly  consent  to  be  saved  them 
selves,  unless  all  others  could  be  saved  with  them. 

The  tender  sensibilities  of  our  sympathetic  author  were  so  excited 
and  agonized  by  the  idea  of  the  endless  misery  of  the  wicked,  that 
he  wondered  how  those  who  beheved  in  it  could  be  happy.  He 
says  ;  "  It  often  surprises  me,  that  the  fearful  doctrine  sits,  if  I 
may  so  express  it,  so  easy  on  the  minds  of  the  religious  and  benev- 
olent believers  of  it.     Surrounded  immediately  by  the  multitudes 

of  fellow-mortals and  regarding  them  as  subjects 

of  so  direful  a  destination,  how  cmi  they  have  any  calm  enjoy- 
ment of  life,  how  can  they  be  cordially  cheerful,  how  can  they 
escape  the  incessant  haunting  of  dismal  ideas,  darkening  the  econ- 
omy in  which  their  lot  is  cast  ?  .  .  .  How  can  they  bear 
the  sight  of  the  living  world  around  them  ?  "  The  author  forgot 
that  the  divine  economy  has  a  bright  side  as  well  as  a  dark  side. 
And  the  bright  side  is  so  bright,  that  if  we  look  at  it  intently  and 
devoutly,  we  shall  hardly  perceive  the  darkness.  "  God  is 
light ;  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all."  His  law,  his  whole 
government,  is  invested  with  a  resplendent  and  glorious  light,  the 
light  of  perfect  wisdom  and  holiness  and  goodness.  The  created 
universe  is  and  will  be  full  of  blessedness.  No  pain,  no  suffering 
■will  be  there,  except  the  just  and  necessary  punishment  of  unre- 
lenting criminals,  who  might  have  been  partakers  of  the  common 
happiness,  but  would  not,  and  who  will  show  so  vile  and  hateful  a 
disposition  and  character,  that  all  good  beings  will  see  and 
acknowledge  that  their  punishment  is  no  more  than  they  deserve, 
and  no  more  than  what  the  glory  of  God's  perfections  and  the 
welfare  of  his  vast  kingdom  require.  Such  is  a  general  view  of 
the  moral  universe.  Such  is  the  grand  economy  of  God's  govern- 
ment. It  is  not  all  dark  and  dismal,  as  it  appeared  to  our  author. 
He  was  mistaken.  His  vision  was  diseased.  Angels,  prophets, 
apostles,  and  all  Christians  whose  minds  are  enlightened  and 
healthy,  view  the  subject  very  differently.     In  their  view,  good 


300  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

infinitely  transcends  evil,  and  even  evil  is  made  promotive  of 
good.  God's  kingdom  is  full  of  light,  and  the  little  darkness 
■which  exists  increases  the  splendor  of  tliat  light. 

Now  is  it  strange  and  unaccountable,  that  Christians  of  enlarged 
views  and  rectified  feelings,  should  be  cheerful  and  happy  ?    They 
do  indeed  believe  what  the  Scriptures  plainly  declare  as  to  the 
future  and  enduring  punishment  of  the  wicked.     And  they  look 
upon  those  who  are  going  in  the  broad  way  to  perdition  with  inex- 
pressible anxiety  and  sorrow,  and  labor  and  pray  for  their  salva- 
tion with  earnestness  and  often  with  tears.     But  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment  is  not  the  only  doctrine  which  they  believe, 
nor  the  only  one  on  which  they  fix  their  serious  contemplations. 
They  believe  all  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  the  glorious  gospel  of 
the  grace  of  God.     They  dwell  upon  the  chief  object  of  Christ's 
advent,  to  save  sinners.     They  think  with  admiration  of  that  sove- 
reign love,  which  actually  bestows  salvation  on  some,  yea,  on  a 
multitude  which  no  man  can  number,  while  all  deserve  to  perish. 
They  think  of  the  perfect  excellence,  the  love,  the  blessings,  the 
holy  reign  of  Christ.     They  think  of  the  blessedness  of  being  with 
Christ.     They  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glorious  inheritance  of  the 
saints  in  light.     A  thousand  objects  all  around  them  and  above 
them,  things  present  and  things  to  come,  press  upon  their  sancti- 
fied  and  happy  contemplations.      All   God's   attributes,   all   his 
"works  and  dispensations  are  invested  with  mingled  majesty  and 
beauty,  and  diffuse  a  sacred  peacefulness  and  gladness  through 
their  hearts.     It  is  not  true  that  they  exult  in  the  dreadful  suffer- 
ings of  their  fellow-creatures,  as  our  author  seems  to  suppose  that 
our  doctrine  implies.     Men  in  a  sound  moral  state  do  not  exult, 
do  not  take  pleasure  in  the  sins  or  miseries  of  immortal  beings. 
They  deplore  what  is   evil.     They  look  upon  the  sufferings  of 
others,  especially  upon  the  just  punishment  which  is  coming  upon 
the  impenitent,  with  a  benevolent  anxiety  and  grief.     They  have 
that  compassion  and  sympathy  towards  them,  and  that  desire  for 
their  happiness,  which  will  most  effectually  incite  them  to  make 
efforts,  sincere  and  faithful  efforts,  to  turn  them  from  their  sinful 
and  destructive  courses.     I  say,  they  do  not  take  pleasure  in 


FUTURE    PUNISHMEHTT.  SOI 

■what  is  evil.     It  is  not  the  sin  or  misery  of  their  fellow-creatures 
that  makes  them  joyful ;  —  far  from   it.      And  if  there  were 
nothing  presented  before  them  but  sin  and  misery,  they  could 
have  no  joy.    But  shall  they  overlook  all  the  holiness  and  blessed- 
ness which  there  is  in  the  eternal  and  unchangeable  God,  and  in 
his  immense  and  everlasting  kingdom  ?     Shall  they  not  rejoice  in 
what  is  good  ?     Shall  they  not  take  pleasure  in  the  endless  happi- 
ness of  the  friends  of  God  ?     Shall  they  turn  away  with  dissatis- 
faction from  the  holy  peace  and  joy  which  a  benevolent  God  gives 
to  his  obedient  servants  in  all  worlds,  because  there  are  those,  — 
comparatively  few,  —  who  are  wedded  to  sin,  and  refuse  to  be 
happy  ?     Now  if  those  who  love  God  and  man,  have  sorrow  of 
heart  for  what  is  evil,  and  joy  in  what  is  good,  —  sorrow  for 
misery,  and  joy  in  happiness  ;  their  joy  must,  in  an  immeasurable 
degree,  exceed  their  pain  and  sorrow,  because  they  find  in  God,  in 
his  law  and  government,  and  in  his  kingdom,  a  good  which  infi- 
nitely exceeds  all  existing  evil,  and  because  they  find  too  that  by 
the  very  infliction  of  merited  evil  upon  the  wicked,  God  manifests 
his  excellence  and  glory  as  moral  Governor,  and  gives  support  to 
that  principle  of  law  and  justice,  which  is  essential  to  the  blessed- 
ness of  intelligent  beings.     Why  should  any  one   suppose  that 
good  men,  living  under  the  reign  of  such  a  God,  engaged  in  per- 
forming so  reasonable  a  service,  and  sharing  with  a  holy  universe 
in  a  happiness  so  pure  and  enduring,  —  can  be  otherwise  than 
joyful  ?     Why  should  they  not  glory  and  triumph  in  the  fulness 
of  gospel  blessings,  which  so  many  happy  souls  partake  with  them, 
and  which  all  others  might  have,  if  they  would  accept  them  ? 
In  a  word,  the  more  believers,  who  are   possessed   of  a  well- 
balanced  mind,  are  affected  with  the  dreadfulness  of  the  just 
doom  which  awaits  the  impenitent,  the  more  earnestly  will  they 
labor  to  deliver  sinners  from  it,  and  the  more  profound  gratitude 
and  joy  will  they  feel  that,  as  they  humbly  hope,  they  are  made 
partakers  of  the  great  salvation. 

"  As  to  religious  teachers,"  our  author  says,  "  If  the  tremen- 
dous doctrine  be  true,  surely  it  ought  to  be  almost  continually 
proclaimed  as  with  the  blast  of  a  trumpet,  inculcated  and  reite- 

VOL.  III.  26 


302  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

rated  with  ardent  passion,  in  every  possible  form  of  terrible  illus- 
tration ;  no  remission  of  the  alarm  to  thoughtless  spirits.  What ! 
conceive  them  in  such  inconceivably  dreadful  peril,  and  not  multi- 
ply and  aggravate  the  terrors  to  frighten  them  out  of  their  stupor  ; 
deploring  still,  that  all  the  horrifying  representations  in  the  power 
of  thought  or  language  to  make  are  immeasurably  below  the  real 
urgency  of  the  subject ;  and  almost  wishing  that  some  appalling 
phenomenon  of  sight  or  sound  might  break  in  to  make  the  impres- 
sion which  no  words  can  make How  can  it  comport  with 

the  duty  of  preachers  to  satisfy  themselves  with  brief,  occasional 
references  to  this  awful  topic,  when  the  most  prolonged  thunder- 
ing alarm  is  but  the  note  of  an  infant  or  an  insect  in  proportion  to 
the  horrible  urgency  of  the  case." 

On  this  passage,  which  contains  much  that  is  true  and  impres- 
sive, I  shall  make  a  few  brief  remarks. 

1.  How  widely  does  our  author  dififer  from  those  generally,  who 
reject  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment !  What  frequent 
clamors  do  we  hear  from  them  against  those  ministers  who  dwell 
frequently,  though  not  by  any  means  continually,  on  these  terrifying 
representations  !  What  complaints  are  made  against  such  writers 
as  Baxter,  Saurin,  AUeine,  Watts  and  Pike,  for  doing  even  in 
part  what  our  author  thinks  they  ought  to  do  ! 

2.  His  feehngs  gave  him  a  very  distorted  view  of  what  might 
reasonably  be  expected  of  those  who  believe  the  doctrine  of  end- 
less punishment.  Such  was  his  habit  of  mind,  that  when  the 
dreadfulness  of  everlasting  misery  seized  his  attention,  it  had  an 
uncontrollable  power  over  him.  He  could  think  of  nothing  else. 
And  it  seemed  to  him  very  strange  that  this  was  not  the  case  with 
all  those  who  admit  the  truth  of  the  doctrine.  Now  it  is  true 
that  ministers  of  the  gospel  who  make  the  word  of  God  their 
standard,  will  solemnly  proclaim  the  terrors  of  the  Lord  as  a 
means  of  persuading  men  to  repentance.  But  this  is  not  the 
only  means  appointed.  This  is  not  the  only  nor  the  chief  doctrine 
to  be  preached.  The  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  was  not 
the  only  subject  nor  the  principal  subject  of  discourse  with  Christ 
or  the  apostles,  —  although  they  took  care  on  all  proper  occasions 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  303 

to  present  it  before  the  minds  of  men  in  all  its  tcrribleness.  But 
they  were  far  from  dwelling  continually,  or  "  almost  continually," 
on  this  subject.  It  was  their  chief  business  to  set  forth  the  infi- 
nite perfections  of  God,  particularly  his  benignity  and  mercy  ;  the 
love,  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  the  offices  he  sustains  and 
the  blessings  he  confers ;  his  invitations  and  promises  ;  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  enlightening  and  sanctifying  sinners  ;  the 
crown  of  glory  laid  up  for  them  in  heaven,  and  the  various  duties 
incumbent  on  them  as  those  who  are  redeemed  by  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ ;  —  these  and  other  kindred  subjects  made  up  the 
substance  of  their  instructions.  And  when  such  interesting  and 
delightful  themes  as  these  occupied  the  thoughts  and  swayed  the 
feelings  of  the  sacred  teachers,  how  could  they  be  continuaUi/  pro- 
claiming the  future  miseries  of  the  wicked  as  with  the  blast  of  a 
trumpet,  without  any  remission  of  the  thundering  alarm  ?  Had 
they  done  this,  their  work  would  indeed  have  been  a  work  of  ter- 
ror, an  incessant  and  exclusive  proclamation  of  indignation  and 
•wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish,  as  though  Christ  came  merely  to 
condemn  the  world,  and  not  that  the  world  through  him  might  have 
life.  And  then  who  would  ever  have  heard  of  the  length  and 
breadth  and  depth  and  height  of  divine  love  ;  or  of  the  cross  of 
Christ  as  a  savor  of  life  to  believers  ?  Who  would  ever  have 
been  cheered  with  the  joyful  truth,  that  where  sin  abounded,  grace 
did  much  more  abound  ?  Who  would  ever  have  been  told,  that 
Christ  invites  sinners,  even  the  chief  of  sinners  to  come  unto  him, 
and  that  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  ?  And  who  would 
ever  have  uttered  those  glad  words,  "  Being  justified  by  faith,  we 
have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  —  and  rejoice 
in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God ;  and  not  only  so,  but  we  glory  in 
tribulation  also  ?  "  Verily  we  are  not  left  in  Egyptian  darkness. 
The  sun  of  righteousness  has  risen  upon  us,  and  our  eyes  have 
beheld  his  glorious  light.  We  have  heard  the  proclamation  of  an 
angel,  "  Behold  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy."  And  we 
have  heard  a  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  praising  God,  and 
saying,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good 
yrill  toward  men."     Blessed  are  our  eves  that  have  seen  and  our 


304  FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

ears  that  have  heard  these  things  —  things  which  have  filled  heaven 
with  joj,  and  which  are  sufficient  to  diffuse  joy  "  through  all  the 
earth."  This  world  indeed  lieth  in  darkness ;  but  Christians  are 
"  light  in  the  Lord."  There  is  misery  among  unrepenting  rebels  ; 
but  the  humble  and  contrite  are  not  miserable.  There  is  wailing 
and  gnashing  of  teeth  among  the  incorrigible  enemies  of  God. 
But  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth  is  not  the  portion  of  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ.  It  is  not  the  great  and  only  work  of  his  ministers 
to  proclaim  the  divine  vengeance  and  the  unquenchable  fire. 
Theirs  is  a  more  pleasing  office.  Their  commission  is  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,  the  gloi'ious  gospel  of  the  grace  of 
God,  and  to  do  it  after  the  pattern  of  the  holy  apostles,  who  did 
by  no  means  neglect  to  Avarn  sinners  of  their  danger,  and  by  the 
terrors  of  the  Lord  to  persuade  them  to  repentance,  but  whose 
principal  labor  was  to  make  known  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ  for  the  salvation  of  the  lost,  and  for  the  edification  and  joy 
of  the  saved.  Behold  the  ministers  of  Christ  to  whom  God  has 
given-"  the  spirit  of  love  and  of  a  sound  mind."  How  fervent 
their  desires  and  prayers,  how  earnest  their  labors  and  how  severe 
their  sufferings  for  the  conversion  of  the  wicked  and  for  the  com- 
fort of  the  saints  !  They  love  their  office  and  are  happy  in  dis- 
charging its  duties,  because  they  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  who 
has  called  them  to  it.  When  through  their  faithful  labors  sinners 
are  born  again,  they  look  upon  them  as  their  joy  and  crown,  and 
abound  in  thanks  to  God  for  the  work  of  his  sovereign  grace. 
The  writer  of  this  gloomy  epistle  was  a  minister  of  the  gospel. 
But  the  office  was  not  congenial  to  his  feelings.  He  was  not  com- 
forted by  the  precious  truths  which  he  was  called  to  teach,  and  he 
did  not  love  the  duties  which  he  was  required  to  discharge.  He 
had  indeed  good  reason  to  be  cheerful  and  happy  in  the  service 
of  so  glorious  a  Lord  and  Master.  But  he  was  not  happy; 
and  his  labors,  performed  under  such  a  dismal  depression  of 
spirits,  were  attended  with  little  success.  Now  a  man  habitually 
subject  to  such  a  diseased  state  of  mind,  could  possess  but  little 
of  the  true  spirit  of  the  sacred  office,  and  could  form  only  one- 
sided and  incorrect  views  of  its  various  duties.     Hence  he  was  far 


FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  305 

from  being  qualified  to  point  out  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued 
by  a  faithful  and  devoted  servant  of  Christ, 

One  word  as  to  the  bad  consequences  of  suggesting  doubts  in 
regard  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  The  doctrine  is  in 
itself  such,  that  men  naturally  wish  it  not  to  be  true.  They  gen- 
erally give  a  ready  hearing  to  objections  offered  against  it,  while 
they  are  slow  to  admit  the  force  of  the  arguments  urged  in  its 
favor.  With  those  who  have  not  a  deliberate  and  confirmed  be- 
lief of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  the  doubts  and  difficulties  of  such  a 
man  as  John  Foster,  will  have  great  weight.  His  doubts  and 
difficulties  will  beget  doubts  and  difficulties  in  them,  and  will  be 
likely,  if  they  have  less  reverence  for  Scripture  than  he  had,  to 
conduct  them  to  conclusions  which  he  would  deplore.  The  bare 
report  or  suspicion  that  Tholuck,  or  other  men  of  less  reputation 
than  he,  consider  the  common  doctrine  as  doubtful,  will  unsettle 
the  minds  of  multitudes,  and  deprive  them  of  the  substantial  ben- 
efit of  believing  a  momentous  truth.  And  few  men  reject  this 
doctrine,  who  do  not  reject  others  also.  It  is  then  a  matter  of 
great  moment  that  the  public  teachers  of  religion  should  fortify 
their  minds  against  the  incursion  of  doubts,  that  they  should  take 
pains  to  come  to  a  full,  unquestioning  faith  in  this  doctrine  of  rev- 
elation, and  should  wisely  and  faithfully  hold  it  forth  in  their 
preaching,  and  apply  it  to  its  proper  practical  uses. 

We  must  now  close  the  consideration  of  this  subject.  The 
general  course  of  remarks  which  I  have  pursued  in  these  two 
Lectures,  may  be  recounted  in  few  words.  Our  author  very  can- 
didly and  seriously  affirms  that  the  language  of  Scripture  which 
points  out  the  continuance  of  future  punishment,  is  "  formidably 
strong,  so  strong,  that  it  must  be  an  argument  of  extreme  cogency 
that  can  authorize  a  hmited  interpretation."  His  argument  we 
have  examined  under  two  heads.  First,  he  argues,  that  endless 
punishment  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  and 
would  be  beyond  the  ill-desert  of  sin.  I  meet  this  argument  by 
saying,  that  he  undertakes  to  judge  on  a  subject  which  lies  not 
"within  his  province  ;  that  human  reason,  in  its  best  state,  is  exceed- 
ingly incompetent  to  determine  what  is  the  demerit  of  sin,  or  what 

26* 


306  FUTURE   PUNISHMENT. 

the  infallible  wisdom  of  God  will  see  to  be  its  just  and  proper 
recompense,  or  in  what  manner  his  infinite  benevolence  will  act 
itself  out  relative  to  this  subject,  in  his  vast  moral  empire.  So 
that  whatever  our  author  may  think  on  the  subject,  Avhatever  may 
be  the  conclusions  to  which  his  reasoning  may  conduct  him,  I 
maintain  that  he  is  essentially  unqualified  to  judge,  and  that  the 
deductions  of  his  reason,  however  vahd  they  may  appear  to  him, 
are  entitled  to  no  confidence,  because  future  punishment,  in  its 
relation  to  the  perfections  of  God,  to  law,  and  sin,  and  the  well- 
being  of  the  universe,  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  the  human  faculties, 
and  any  man,  who  takes  upon  him  by  reasoning  to  determine  what 
will  be  or  will  not  be  the  duration  of  future  punishment,  will 
be  sure  to  err.  He  has  no  adequate  understanding  of  the  princi- 
ples on  which  the  decision  of  the  question  must  rest,  and  no  ability 
to  apply  those  principles  so  as  to  arrive  at  a  right  result.  The 
author's  argument  then  for  giving  a  hmited  interpretation  to  the 
language  of  Scripture  referred  to,  is  built  upon  the  sand.  It  can- 
not be  relied  upon.  Instead  of  being  an  argument  of  extreme 
cogency,  it  has  no  pogency  at  all.  The  formidable  strength  of  the 
language  of  holy  writ  remains  then  unbroken.  And  after  all  that 
is  advanced  in  this  ingenious  and  eloquent  epistle,  we  stand  up 
boldly  and  say,  that  sin  is  so  great  an  evil  as  to  deserve  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law,  involving  everlasting  punishment ;  and  that  such 
punishment  is  not  only  reconcilable  with  the  unbounded  goodness 
of  God,  but  is  required  by  it.  And  we  say  this,  not  because  wo 
can  make  it  out  by  mere  reason,  but  because  the  language  of 
Scripture  teaches  it,  and  no  "  argument  of  extreme  cogency,"  or 
of  any  cogency,  exists  for  giving  that  language  a  limited  interpre- 
tation. Such  is  the  first  general  mistake  in  which  our  author  was 
involved.  He  entrusted  reason  with  a  subject  which  it  is  not  able 
to  grasp.  And  we  have  seen  into  what  manifest  oversights  and 
mistakes  he  was  betrayed  by  his  unfortunate  habit  of  thinking  — 
mistakes  which  reason  itself,  under  proper  direction,  might  have 
avoided. 

Under  the  second  head,  we  have  found  that  our  author  errs  still 
more  in  the  matter  (iijedytig^  than  in  the  matter  of  reason.    JFo? 


FUTURE   PUNISHMENT.  307 

if  the  noble  faculty  of  reason,  in  its  most  improved  state,  is  not 
competent  to  judge  on  so  vast  and  profound  a  subject,  as  the  just 
punishment  of  sin,  humdca  feeling  is  far  less  competent ;  and,  if  it 
is  made  our  standard  in  judging  of  the  divine  conduct  in  this  con- 
cern, it  will  lead  us  into  many  and  hurtful  errors.  Feeling  in  the 
most  enlightened,  sound,  and  well-balanced  minds  is  unfit  to  be 
our  guide  on  such  a  subject.  It  is  designed  and  adapted  by  our 
Creator  for  very  important  purposes,  but  here  it  is  out  of  place. 
And  if  feeling  in  the  strongest,  soundest  minds  cannot  be  relied 
upon  as  a  safe  guide  in  judging  of  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked  ;  how  unsafe  and  perilous  is  it  to  be  guided  by  such  feehng 
as  that  of  our  illustrious  but  unhappy  author,  —  feehng  so  soft,  so 
sensitive,  and  timid  —  so  incapable  of  surveying  with  composure 
the  scene  of  human  suflfering  even  in  this  world,  and  still  more 
incapable  of  thinking  with  quiet  acquiescence  of  the  sentence 
which  the  Saviour  himself,  the  Lamb  of  God,  will  pronounce  upon 
the  wicked  at  the  last  day.  It  was  a  fundamental  mistake  for 
him  to  snSer  feeliiig  to  gain  such  power  over  him  in  regard  to  such 
a  subject ;  and  from  this  mistake,  and  the  same  mistake  in 
regard  to  reason,  the  various  false  conclusions  which  we  have 
noticed,  naturally  and  necessarily  resulted. 

Finally.  Take  care  to  guard  against  the  obvious  and  essential 
mistakes  of  our  author ;  come  to  the  holy  oracles  without  having 
your  mind  prepossessed  with  the  abovementioned  errors  of  reason 
and  feeling,  and  humbly,  and  honestly,  and  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  attend  to  the  formidably  plain  and  strong  language 
of  the  infallible  word  of  God,  and  you  will  find  no  place  for  doubts 
and  objections,  but  will  seriously  and  trembhngly  believe  the  fearful 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment. 


LECTURE     CIX. 


CHRISTIAN   ORDINANCES.      BAPTISM. 

The  word  sacraments  is  commonly  used  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nances or  rites  of  the  Christian  church.  Sacrament  origi- 
nally signified  the  oath,  by  which  the  Roman  soldiers  bound 
themselves  to  obey  their  commander.  When  apphed  to  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel,  it  is,  I  suppose,  intended  to  signify,  that 
those  who  make  use  of  them  promise  obedience  to  Christ.  In  the 
Vulgate  version  of  the  New  Testament,  the  word  sacramentum 
was  employed  to  translate  [xvor^giov,  mystery.  Thus  the  word 
mystery  acquired  a  new  sense  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were  called  Christian 
mysteries^  partly  because  under  external  symbols  spiritual  blessings 
were  veiled,  and  partly,  perhaps,  on  account  of  the  secret  manner 
in  which  they  were  attended.  But  I  much  prefer  to  call  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  Christian  orditiances,  or  the  positive  insti- 
tutions or  rites  of  the  Christian  religion.  By  using  these  words, 
we  may  easily  settle  the  strange  controversy  which  has  existed 
about  the  number  of  the  sacraments.  For  the  simple  question 
would  be,  whether  this  thing  or  that  is  divinely  appointed  to  be  a 
standing  ordinance  in  the  Christian  church. 

In  a  religious  ordinance  or  sacrament,  two  things  are  included, 
the  sign,  and  the  thing  signified.  The  sign  is  outward  and  sensi- 
ble. The  thing  signified  is  something  inward  and  spiritual,  which 
is  represented  by  the  sign,  and  in  our  thoughts  associated  with  it. 
Hence,  by  a  common  figure  of  speech,  the  name  of  the  sign  is 


CHRISTIAN    ORDINANCES.  309 

sometimes  given  to  the  thing  signified.  So  Christ  is  called  "  our 
Passover,"  he  having  been  represented  by  the  Passover.  In  liko 
manner,  as  the  bread  used  in  the  Lord's  Supper  represents  or  sig- 
nifies his  body,  and  the  wine  his  blood,  the  bread  is  called  his  body^ 
and  the  wine  his  blood.  The  signification  however  goes  further, 
and  refers  to  the  death  of  Christ,  by  which  atonement  was  made, 
and  spiritual  blessings  procured  for  his  people.  By  the  same 
figure  of  speech,  the  Scripture  says  of  the  rock  in  the  wilderness 
from  which  water  issued  for  the  supply  of  the  Israelites,  —  "  that 
rock  ivas  Christ,''^  it  being  a  striking  representation  of  him;  and 
it  was  said  of  the  two  olive  trees  seen  by  the  Prophet  Zechariah, 
— "  the  two  olive  trees  are  the  two  anointed  ones,'  —  that  is, 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  who  were  fitly  represented  by  the  olive 
trees.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  fathers  called  baptism  regene- 
ration, doubtless  because  baptism  was  an  indication  of  regenera- 
tion, or  spiritual  cleansing.  And  the  same  figure  seems  to  have 
been  used  in  some  passages  of  Scripture ;  for  example  ;  Ananias 
seid  to  Paul,  "  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins" 
baptism  being  a  sign  of  such  washing.  The  doctrine  of  Baptismal 
Regeneration  (so  called)  and  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation, 
rest,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  on  no  better  ground  than  this,  that  a  well 
known  figure  of  speech,  which  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture  and 
is  of  very  easy  interpretation,  is  most  absurdly  understood  to  cou- 
Tey  a  sense  exactly  literal. 

The  benefit  of  positive  institutions  or  outward  rites  in  religion  is 
exceedingly  obvious.  It  is  a  striking  remark  of  Chrysostom,  that 
if  we  were  incorporeal  beings,  God  would  have  delivered  his  gifts 
to  us  naked  and  incorporeal;  but  as  our  soul  is  connected  with  a 
body,  he  has  delivered  things  intellectual  by  sensible  signs. 

God  has  generally  taken  things  already  familiarly  known,  and 
appointed  them  to  be  signs  or  representations  of  the  blessings  of 
his  goodness.  Thus  the  rainbow,  which  had  always  been  seen  as 
a  natural  phenomenon,  was  made  a  sign  or  pledge  that  the  world 
should  not  be  again  destroyed  by  a  universal  deluge.  It  was 
God's  covenant,  that  is,  his  promise,  or  declared  purpose,  that  the 
world  should  not  be  thus  destroyed,  and  the  rainbow  was  appouated 


310  THE    ORDINANCES    OR    RITES 

to  be  a  sign  to  remind  us,  that  such  is  his  covenant,  or  prom- 
ise. It  is  God's  purpose  and  promise  to  cleanse  sinners  from 
moral  defilement,  and  to  renew  them  to  holiness.  In  Ileb.  8:  8 — 
12,  this  divine  purpose  and  dispensation  is  represented  as  a  "  new 
covenant,"  in  distinction  from  the  former  dispensation,  Avhich  con- 
sisted so  much  in  outward  rites  and  was  far  less  efficacious.  It 
"was  the  revealed  purpose  of  God  to  bestow  more  precious  bles- 
sings, or  rather,  to  bestow  spiritual  blessings  in  larger  measures. 
"  I  will  put  mj  laws  into  their  minds,  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  thej  shall  be  to  me  a 
people.  And  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and 
their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more."  Now  this  covenant^ 
this  gracious  design  and  promise  of  God  to  sanctify  and  pardon 
sinners,  is  represented  by  sensible  signs,  that  is,  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  By  these  we  are  assisted  to  keep  in  mind  the 
blessings  flowing  from  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Our  faith  in  the  great  mercy  of  our 
Saviour  and  Sanctifier  is  confirmed,  and  the  blessings  of  salvation 
are  sealed  to  us,  if  we  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  gos- 
pel. In  other  words,  believers  are  in  this  way  assured  that  those 
blessings  shall  be  theirs.  The  seals,  as  applied  to  individuals,  are 
evidently  conditional,  like  the  general  promise  of  forgiveness  and 
salvation.  God  promises  to  pardon  and  save.  The  promise  is 
"Written  in  the  Scriptures  and  proclaimed  by  the  servants  of 
Christ ;  and  we  read  it,  and  hear  it.  The  blessings  promised  are 
precious  ;  but  they  are  limited  to  those  who  believe.  The  import 
of  the  seals,  when  applied  to  individuals,  is  limited  in  the  same 
way.  Otherwise  their  import  would  be  untrue.  If  they  gave 
assurance  of  forgiveness  and  eternal  life  to  any,  except  believers, 
they  would  contradict  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  For  those 
promises  give  assurance  of  salvation  only  to  believers.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  outward  seals.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  no 
more  secure  salvation  to  all  who  receive  them,  than  the  promises 
secure  it  to  all  who  read  or  hear  them.  The  value  of  the  gracious 
promises  of  the  gospel  lies  in  this,  that  they  give  us  assurance  of 
forgiveness,  on  condition  of  our  repentance  and  faith.     Baptism 


OF    CHRISTIANITY.  311 

and  the  Lord's  Supper  seal  the  promises.  As  signs  appointed  by 
God,  thej  give  assurance  to  believers,  that  the  promised  blessings 
of  salvation  will  be  theirs.  They  do  not,  by  any  virtue  inherent 
in  them,  or  imparted  to  them,  confer  sjiiritual  blessings  upon  indivi- 
duals, any  more  than  the  rainbow  did,  of  itself,  confer  the  blessings 
of  seed-time  and  harvest.  The  rainbow  was  a  sign,  a  mere  sign, 
that  those  blessings  should  be  enjoyed  by  the  world  at  large.  As 
the  promise  of  those  blessings  was  without  any  condition,  the  sign 
gave  assurance  of  them  without  any  condition. 

The  Apostle  says,  that  circumcision  was  to  Abraham  "  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith,"  that  is,  of  gratuitous  justification, 
which  he  before  had.  It  was  a  sign  or  token,  that  the  blessings 
of  free  justification  did  in  reality  belong  to  him,  as  a  believer. 
When  applied  to  others,  whoever  they  might  be,  whether  old  or 
young,  and  whether  Israelites  or  gentiles,  it  was  a  seal  of  the 
promise  —  of  what  promise  ?  Why.  of  the  promise  of  the  same 
free  justification  to  them,  if  they  had  the  same  faith  as  Abraham 
had.  It  did  not,  of  itself,  by  any  virtue  inherent  in  it  or  imparted 
to  it,  actually  confer  spiritual  blessings.  Nor  was  it  a  seal  or  con- 
firmation of  any  promise,  that  God  would  confer  tliem  uncondi- 
tionally upon  all  who  should  be  circumcised  ;  for  there  was  no 
such  promise.  When  applied  to  Abraham's  natural  seed,  it  did 
indeed  seal  to  them  important  privileges  ;  but  it  did  not  seal 
spiritual  blessings  to  them,  except  on  the  condition  of  their  walk- 
ing in  the  steps  of  faithful  Abraham.  If  they  complied  with  that 
condition,  he  would  be  a  God  to  them,  as  he  was  to  him.  If  then 
you  would  determine  the  meaning  and  the  value  of  the  sign,  first 
determine  the  meaning  and  the  value  of  the  promise,  or  covenant, 
"  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed."  This  promise  con- 
tained an  infinite  good.  But  for  whom  ?  Not  for  all  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  indiscriminately  and  absolutely,  but  for 
those  who  possessed  his  faith.  Here  then  you  see  the  meaning 
and  value  of  the  seal.  It  confirmed  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
to  those  who  were  circumcised,  on  condition  of  their  having  faith. 
Their  having  faith  would  constitute  them,  in  the  high,  spiritual 
sense,  children  of  Abraham,  and  the  seal  would  then  assure  them, 


812  THE    ORDINANCES    OR    RITES 

that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  would  be  theirs.  The  promise 
uttered  a  precious  truth.  The  seal  confirmed  the  same  truth  ;  — 
just  as  a  seal  put  upon  a  man's  last  Will  and  Testament,  confirms 
what  the  Will  contains.  If  the  Will  grants  favors  absolutely,  the 
seal  confirms  them  absolutely ;  if  conditionally,  the  seal  confirms 
them  conditionally. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  external  rites,  or  sacraments,  under  the 
gospel  dispensation.  They  are  seals  or  visible  confirmations  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  Now  this  covenant  or  declared  purpose 
of  God  sometimes  gives  a  general  assurance  of  the  bestowment  of 
spiritual  blessings  upon  sinners,  an  assurance  that  God  will  carry 
on  the  work  of  redemption,  and  will  call  sinners  with  a  holy  call- 
ing. And  in  reference  to  this,  the  sacraments  or  visible  rites  of 
our  religion  may  be  understood  as  giving  assurance  to  the  church, 
that  he  will  save  sirmers,  and  will  continue  to  preserve  and  build 
up  his  kingdom  on  earth,  and  that  he  will  do  it  by  the  means 
which  he  has  appointed,  such  as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  read- 
ing the  Scriptures,  the  instructions,  the  examples  and  prayers  of 
pious  parents  and  other  Christians,  and  the  dispensations  of  provi- 
dence. But  the  covenant  or  gospel  promise,  taken  in  its  personal 
application,  or  its  application  to  individuals,  secures  forgiveness 
and  eternal  life  to  those  only  who  repent  and  believe.  Whatever 
privileges  men  enjoy,  whatever  their  external  relations  may  be,  or 
their  visible  characters,  the  promise  of  God  does  not  insure  their 
salvation  unless  they  have  true  faith,  the  faith  of  God's  elect. 
Of  course,  neither  the  rite  of  baptism,  nor  the  rite  of  the  sacred 
supper,  seals  or  confirms  the  blessings  of  forgiveness  and  salvation 
to  any  individuals,  except  on  condition  of  their  having  true  faith. 
If  you  ask,  whether  it  does  not  always  secure  to  them  regenera- 
tion and  faith  ;  the  answer  is,  that  neither  the  word  nor  the  provi- 
dence of  God  evinces  that  it  does  so.  The  promises  of  God  are  the 
same,  and  the  declarations  that  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy,  and  that  those  who  are  given  to  Christ  shall  come  to 
him,  are  the  same  as  they  would  be,  if  there  were  no  sacraments. 
The  appointed  sacraments  or  outward  rites  do  not  change  the  doc- 
trines or  promises  of  God's  word,  but  seal  and  confirm  them  — 


OF     CHRISTIANITY.  313 

confirm  them  as  they  are.  They  do  not  give  assurance  of  eternal 
life,  except  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  revelation.  Those 
who  receive  baptism  cannot  be  saved  on  any  lower  terms,  than 
those  who  do  not  receive  it.  The  inspired  declarations,  "  Except 
a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;" — 
"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  life ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  not  see  life," — These  declarations  are  as  true,  as  if  there  were 
no  sacraments,  and  as  true  to  those  who  receive  the  sacraments,  as 
to  those  wl^o  do  not.  I  repeat  it,  that  the  outward  institutions  or 
rites  of  Christianity  are  not  intended  to  make  any  alteration  in  the 
truths  or  promises  of  the  gospel,  or  in  the  terms  of  salvation,  but 
on  the  contrary,  are  intended  to  confirm  them  as  they  are,  to  show 
that  they  are  immutable. 

Although  the  outward  rite  of  baptism  is  designed  to  indicate 
that  inward  pui-ification  which  is  necessary  to  eternal  life,  and  to 
show  that  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  truly  belong  to  all  who  receive 
it  in  the  spirit  of  faith ;  it  is,  in  fact,  still  applied  to  many,  who  are 
not  partakers  of  those  blessings.  Through  the  want  of  godlinesa 
in  those  who  are  baptized,  there  is  a  separation  between  the  sign 
and  the  thing  signified.  Baptism  is  administered,  as  it  was  to 
Simon  the  sorcerer,  and  administered  lawfully,  so  far  as  the  ad- 
ministrator is  concerned,  while  the  inward  grace  is  wanting.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  inward  grace,  that  is,  spiritual  purification, 
unquestionably  belongs  to  many  who  are  not  baptized.  Indeed 
all  adult  persons  should  give  evidence  of  the  beginning  of  inward 
purification,  previously  to  baptism.  Thus  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly's Confession  of  Faith  teaches,  that  "grace  and  salvation  are 
not  so  inseparably  annexed  to  baptism,  as  that  no  person  can  be 
regenerated  or  saved  Avithout  it,  or  that  all  who  are  baptized,  are 
undoubtedly  regenerated."  The  Apostle  says  ;  "  neither  circum- 
cision availcth  anything  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  cr'eature." 
It  is  equally  true,  that  neither  baptism,  by  itself,  nor  the  want  of 
it,  availeth  anything.  The  grand  prerequisite  to  salvation  is  faith 
in  Christ.  But  it  is  clear,  that  all  who  have  faith,  will  be  sincerely 
disposed  to  obey  the  divine  commands  and  conform  to  the  divine 
institutions.     Hence,  in  all  ordinary  circumstances,  believers  will 

VOL.  III.  27 


314  THE  ORDINANCES    OR    RITES 

be  baptized,  so  that  in  them  the  outward  sign  and  the  spiritual 
blessing  signified  will,  according  to  the  manifest  design  of  the  rite, 
be  joined  together.  But  it  is  a  most  palpable  mistake  to  suppose 
that  all  who  are  baptized  are  therefore  the  subjects  of  spiritual 
purification.  For  it  is  evident  from  Scripture  and  from  facts,  that 
baptism  has  no  more  efficacy  to  regenerate  and  save  the  soul,  than 
circumcision  had.  There  is  no  more  reason  to  conclude,  that  all 
who  are  baptized  are  renewed  by  the  Spirit,  than  that  all  who  were 
circumcised  were  thus  renewed.  We  know  that  circumcision  was 
as  really  a  sign  of  spiritual  blessings,  as  baptism  is.  It  was,  the 
Apostle  says,  a  sign  or  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  But 
the  sign  or  seal  avails  nothing,  if  the  good  signified  is  wanting. 
It  is  as  useless  as  a  seal  upon  a  blank  paper.  There  can  be  no 
more  erroneous  or  fatal  opinion,  than  that  Avhich  has  prevailed  so 
universally  in  the  Catholic  church,  and  so  extensively  in  Protestant 
churches,  namely,  that  baptism,  either  by  its  own  inherent  virtue, 
or  through  the  divine  blessing  accompanying  it,  certainly  insures 
and  even  implies  the  actual  regeneration  of  all  who  are  baptized. 
Baptism  does  indeed  bring  those  who  receive  it  into  an  important 
relation  to  the  church  of  Christ  and  secures  to  them  important 
privileges,  which  God  often  blesses  to  their  salvation.  But  to 
regard  the  outward  rite,  and  to  rely  upon  it,  as  insuring  inward  puri- 
fication by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  an  error  of  most  fearful  tendency,  and 
it  has  contributed  to  the  fatal  delusion  of  multitudes  which  no  man 
can  number. 

Every  ordinance  of  God  is  important,  and  ought  to  be  conscien- 
tiously and  solemnly  observed.  But  how  small  comparatively  was 
the  value  which  Christ  and  the  apostles  attached  to  external  rites. 
The  Apostle  Paul  says,  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize,  but  to  preach 
the  gospel,  and  he  speaks  of  it  with  satisfaction,  that  he  had  baptized 
only  a  few  individuals.  It  was  the  preaching  of  Christ  crucified, 
not  baptism,  that  he  regarded  as  the  power  of  God  to  salvation. 
This  was  the  great  work  which  was  assigned  to  him  as  the  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.  The  administration  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  being 
of  minor  consequence,  was  committed  to  others,  while  he,  the  chief 
Apostle,  accomplished  a  higher  object,  making  known  the  truths 


OP    CHRISTIANITY.  315 

of  the  gospel,  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ.  Had  he  looked 
upon  baptism  as  that  which  would  secure  the  saving  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  he  most  surely  would 
not  have  treated  the  subject  as  he  did. 

Baptism,  which  in  its  application  to  adult  believers,  signifies  their 
spiritual  cleansing  and  their  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  seals  to 
them  the  promised  blessings  of  grace,  may  also  be  regarded  as  a 
means  of  their  spiritual  improvement,  by  showing  them  more  clearly 
the  importance  of  those  things  which  are  signified  by  it.  And  it 
may,  if  God  pleases,  be  a  means  of  salvation  to  persons  who  impro- 
perly ofier  themselves  for  baptism  while  unregenerate.  It  may  im- 
press their  hearts  with  the  necessity  of  that  inward  purification  which 
is  signified  by  the  rite,  and  either  at  the  time  of  its  administrar 
tion,  or  afterwards,  it  may,  through  divine  grace,  be  the  means  of 
their  conversion.  It  may  often  be  the  means  of  saving  benefits 
to  infant  children,  who  are  offered  for  baptism  by  their  believing 
parents.  At  the  very  time  of  their  baptism  they  may,  if  it  please 
God,  be  renewed  by  the  Spirit ;  or  the  renewing  of  the  Spirit  may 
be  granted  afterwards,  but  granted  still  in  a  real  connection  with 
the  ordinance  of  baptism.  So  the  Confession  of  Faith  represents 
the  matter.     "  The  efiicacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment 

of  time  wherein  it  is  administered" "  By  the  right  use 

of  this  ordinance,  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really 
conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such,  (whether  of  age  or  infants,) 
as  that  grace  helongeth  unto  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's 
own  will,  in  his  appointed  time.''  There  are  those,  to  whom, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  belongeth ;  that  is ;  God  in  his  sovereign  mercy  has  designed 
it  for  them,  has  chosen  them  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit.  And  "  such  "  —  not  all  who  are  baptized,  but  "  such 
as  that  grace  belongeth  unto,"  will,  "  in  God's  appointed  time," 
experience  that  purifying  influence  of  the  Spirit,  of  which  baptism 
is  the  sign.  The  saving  efficacy  of  baptism  depends  ultimately  on 
the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  and  is,  in  his  appointed  time,  applied 
to  the  heirs  of  salvation.  By  this  view  of  the  subject  we  are  freed 
from  the   strange  and  perplexing  supposition  of  a  saving  efficacy 


316  CHRISTIAN     ORDINANCES. 

inherent  in  the  outward  ordinance,  or  uniformly  imparted  to  it, —  a 
supposition  as  contrary  to  Scripture  and  to  well  known  facts,  as  it 
would  be  to  suppose  that  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper 
secures  forgiveness  and  eternal  life  to  all  who  partake  of  it,  or  that 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  has  an  efficacy  to  convert  all  who  hear  it. 
But  for  a  full  explanation  and  defence  of  the  general  doctrine 
of  baptism,  and  a  satisfactory  exposure  of  false  views  of  the  subject, 
I  must  refer  you  to  Calvin's  Institutes,  to  D wight's  and  Dick's 
Theology,  and  to  other  well  known  works,  both  didactic  and  con- 
troversial, relating  to  baptism  ;  and  shall  proceed  to  that  which  I 
shall  make  a  more  particular  subject  of  discussion,  namely,  Infant 
Baptism. 


LECTURE     ex. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


The  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  has  been  the  subject  of  long- 
continued  controversy  in  the  Christian  world,  and  has  given  rise 
to  more  contention  among  the  followers  of  Christ,  than  almost  any 
other  subject.  It  has  been  the  occasion  of  separating  into  differ- 
ent communions,  those  who  have  been  united  in  their  belief  on  all 
other  subjects,  and  who  have  been  animated  by  the  same  spirit  of 
love  to  Christ  and  his  cause.  I  trust  the  time  has  arrived,  when 
those  who  differ  in  opinion  respecting  Infant  Baptism,  will  cherish 
feehngs  of  candor  and  forbearance  towards  one  another. 

As  those  for  whom  these  Lectures  are  specially  intended,  will 
be  called  to  act  a  part  not  only  in  private  but  in  public,  in  regard 
to  the  subject  now  to  be  considered  ;  I  shall  suggest  a  few  precau- 
tions and  directions,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  your  influence 
more  extensively  useful  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  the  cause  of 
love. 

1.  Take  care  not  to  magnify  the  subject  beyond  its  real  impor- 
tance. 

The  subject  ought  not  indeed  to  be  underrated,  or  treated  as  a 
trifle.  It  is  no  trifle.  It  obviously  possesses  a  high  degree  of 
importance,  and  deserves  to  be  maintained  with  firmness  and  zeal. 
But  after  all,  we  must  remember  that  it  is  an  outward  rite,  and 
does  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  the  Christian  religion.  If 
men  are  born  of  the  Spirit ;  if  they  love  and  obey  the  Saviour, 
and  are  prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  the  great  object  for 
27* 


318  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

•which  Christ  died,  and  for  -which  we  ought  to  labor,  is  obtained. 
It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  subject  of  baptism  cannot  be  regarded 
as  bearing  any  comparison,  in  point  of  importance,  with  the  con- 
version and  salvation  of  sinners.  And  whatever  discussion  we 
may  think  it  our  duty  to  undertake,  and  with  whatever  earnestness 
we  may  labor  to  bring  men  to  receive  what  we  sincerely  believe  to 
be  a  divine  institution  ;  we  ought  still  to  consider  their  eternal  sal- 
vation as  infinitely  more  important,  than  merely  conforming  to  an 
outward  rite.  And  if  they  show  by  their  conduct,  that  they  are 
friends  to  Christ  and  truly  obedient  to  his  gospel,  we  should  cor- 
dially thank  God,  and  rejoice,  though  they  may  conscientiously 
diflfer  from  us  in  regard  to  external  observances. 

2.  While  those  who  reject  the  rite  of  Infant  Baptism^  give  evi- 
dence of  a  Christian  character^  they  are  entitled  to  our  affection  and 
confidence.  . 

In  the  exercise  of  Christian  candor,  we  can  easily  be  satisfied 
that  men  who  truly  desire  to  please  God,  may  differ  from  us  in 
regard  to  this  religious  rite.  The  proof  that  Infant  Baptism  is  a 
divine  institution,  though  very  clear  and  satisfactory  to  us,  may 
not  be  so  to  those  who  have  been  placed  in  a  different  condition 
from  us,  and  have  formed  different  habits  of  thinking.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  their  birth  and  education  may  have  led  them,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  to  entertain  different  views  on  this  subject ;  and 
those  views  may  have  been  associated  with  the  earliest  and  deepest 
impressions  of  divine  truth  on  their  minds,  and  with  their  most 
spiritual  exercises.  Had  we  been  placed  in  their  circumstances, 
should  we  not  probably  have  adopted  the  same  views  ? 

Those  who  come  to  the  examination  of  this  subject  may  have 
such  ideas  of  the  kind  or  degree  of  evidence  which  is  necessary  to 
support  a  positive  institution,  that,  with  those  mistaken  ideas, 
their  honest  desire  to  do  the  will  of  God,  may  prevent  them  from 
agreeing  with  us  as  to  the  rite  of  Infant  Baptism. 

Let  us  duly  regard  such  considerations  as  these  ;  and,  instead  of 
stijrmatizin";  those  Christians  who  differ  from  us,  let  us  cherish  to- 
wards  them  the  sincerest  candor  and  kindness.  It  is  no  difficult  thing 
to  account  for  their  peculiar  views  from  their  pecuhar  circumstances, 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  319 

without  any  impeachment  of  their  motives  or  any  distrust  of  their 
piety.  Why  then  should  we  not  entertain  the  same  sentiments  of 
love  and  confidence  towards  them,  and  the  same  desire  for  their 
improvement  and  happiness,  as  though  they  belonged  to  the  same 
denomination  with  ourselves  ? 

3.  Never  introduce  this  subject  in  the  way  of  controversy,  except 
when  a  pure  regard  to  the  interests  of  Christ'' s  kingdom  requires  it. 

Undoubtedly  a  regard  to  the  high  and  sacred  interests  of 
religion  will  lead  you,  at  proper  times,  to  exhibit  and  defend  what 
you  honestly  believe  to  be  true  on  this  subject,  and  to  do  it  with 
seriousness  and  zeal.  But  when  this  is  to  be  done,  it  will  be  expe- 
dient, generally,  that  you  enter  upon  it  with  particular  prepara- 
tion, and  pursue  it  in  a  regular  discourse,  instead  of  remarking 
upon  it  in  a  hasty  or  cursory  manner.  The  practice  of  introducing 
such  a  subject,  from  day  to  day,  and  on  all  occasions,  betrays  im- 
proper feeling  in  us,  and  is  likely  to  promote  the  same  in  others. 
Let  this  subject  therefore  be  brought  forward  only  on  occasions 
when  there  is  an  obvious  and  special  reason  for  doing  it ;  and  then 
let  it  be  presented  in  connection  with  the  weighty  truths  of  re- 
ligion, and  treated  with  great  moderation  and  seriousness.  Thus 
you  will  show  that  it  is  a  matter  of  conscience,  not  of  party  feeling. 

4.  Treat  those  who  differ  from  you  in  regard  to  Infant  Baptism 
Ufith  uniform  kindness. 

Study  to  do  them  good.  Exercise  towards  them  a  generous 
friendship,  and  exhibit  that  friendship  in  substantial  acts.  In 
this  way  you  may  hope  to  produce  candor  and  kindness  in  them, 
and  to  prepare  them  to  join  their  efforts  with  yours  in  promoting 
those  common  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom,  which  are  immeasur- 
ably more  important,  than  the  peculiar  interests  either  of  their 
denomination  or  of  yours.  And  should  you  find  that  the  object 
of  your  wishes  is  not  at  once  obtained,  and  that  any  of  those, 
whom  you  labor  to  conciliate,  and  whose  welfare  you  aim  to  pro- 
mote, choose  after  all  to  stand  aloof,  and  to  exhibit  the  spirit  of 
sectarian  zeal  and  animosity ;  —  and  should  they  sometimes  go 
further,  and  speak  of  those  arguments,  which  you  consider  to  be 
•trong  and  decisive,  as  flimsy  and  contemptible,  and  attempt  to 


320  ,  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

lower  your  reputation  and  to  hinder  your  success  ;  still  persevere 
in  the  exercise  of  forbearance  and  kindness  towards  them,  and 
even  of  magnanimity,  remembering  that,  whatever  you  may  suffer 
for  the  present,  such  conduct  will  have  a  happy  effect  upon  your 
own  mind,  will  promote  the  best  interests  of  Christ's  Church,  and 
secure  the  gracious  approbation  of  your  Father  in  heaven,  remem- 
bering too,  that  the  opposite  course,  that  is,  the  exercise  of  un- 
kindness  and  severity  towards  those  Christians  who  differ  from  you, 
would  injure  your  own  spiritual  interests,  as  well  as  theirs,  and 
would  tend  to  perpetuate  all  the  evils  of  division  and  strife. 

Having  made  these  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  spirit  of  mind 
with  which  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  should  be  discussed,  and 
the  manner  in  which  we  should  conduct  ourselves  towards  those 
who  differ  from  us,  I  shall  call  your  attention  to  considerations 
relating  more  directly  to  the  subject  itself. 

As  a  preparation  for  a  profitable  discussion,  it  is  of  special  con- 
sequence that  you  should  free  your  minds  from  all  mistaken  appre- 
hensions, as  to  the  hind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  is  to  be 
considered  necessary.  I  introduce  this  subject  here,  because  it 
relates  to  the  mode  of  reasoning  which  is  to  be  pursued,  and  be- 
cause it  is  obviously  best,  as  far  as  may  be,  to  settle  our  minds  on 
this  point  at  the  outset. 

Different  conceptions  respecting  the  proper  mode  of  reasoning 
are  evidently  the  principal  causes  of  the  difference  which  exists 
among  men  in  regard  to  the  question  at  issue.  If  in  regard  to 
any  position,  we  look  for  evidence  of  which  the  subject  is  not  ca- 
pable, or  which  is  not  accessible  to  us  at  the  present  time  ;  the 
most  diligent  and  persevering  inquiry  must  leave  us  unconvinced. 
The  proposition  laid  down  may  be  true  ;  but  we  may  not  be  satisfied 
of  its  truth.  It  may  have  sufficient  evidence  ;  but  our  mode  of  es- 
timating evidence  may  be  such  as  to  prevent  conviction.  Suppose 
a  man  is  accused  before  a  court  of  justice  of  a  particular  crime ; 
and  suppose  there  is  clear  circumstantial  evidence,  and  that  only, 
of  his  guilt.  If  the  court  demand  dij-ect,  positive  proof  of  the 
crime,  the  evidence  which  they  have  will  go  for  nothing,  and  the 
man,  though  manifestly  guilty,  will  be  pronounced  innocent.     But 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  321 

sucli  is  not  the  principle  -which  governs  our  courts  of  justice,  even 
in  those  proceedings  which  relate  to  life  and  death.  They  look 
for  positive  evidence,  if  it  can  be  had.  If  not,  they  admit  satis- 
factory evidence  of  another  kind. 

The  importance  of  just  views  respecting  evidence  is  obvious  in 
respect  to  moral  subjects  generally.  Even  when  the  evidence 
sought  is  of  the  right  kind  ;  we  must  still  take  care  not  to  mistake 
as  to  the  degree  of  it  which  is  necessary.  In  regard  to  any  moral 
truth,  it  belongs  not  to  us  to  determine  by  what  evidence  it  shall 
be  supported.  On  this  point,  our  expectations,  in  many  instances, 
may  be  greatly  disappointed ;  and  we  may  be  obliged  either  to 
reject  some  of  the  most  important  principles  of  natural  and  revealed 
religion,  or  to  be  satisfied  Avith  evidence  very  diSferent  from  what 
we  once  supposed  necessary  and  attainable.  Our  object  then 
should  be  to  discover  the  evidence,  whatever  may  be  its  kind  or 
degree,  which  is  within  our  reach,  and  which  shall  be  sufficient  to 
satisfy  a  reasonable  and  candid  man. 

We  are  to  remember  also,  that  much  depends  on  our  prevailing 
disposition.  Many  a  doctrine  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  if  our  moral 
state  is  right,  a  small  degree  of  evidence  will  be  sufficient  to  pro- 
duce entire  conviction  of  its  truth.  There  is  something  in  the 
original  constitution  or  in  the  acquired  habit  of  the  mind,  or  in 
other  truths  already  admitted,  which  predisposes  us  to  receive  it. 
This  constitution  or  habit  of  the  mind,  and  the  admission  of  other 
truths  allied  to  the  one  under  consideration,  may  have  the  effect 
of  evidence  ;  and  if  it  could  be  clearly  perceived  and  defined,  it 
might  appear  to  have  the  tiatiire  of  evidence.  It  may  in  fact  be 
evidence  of  the  best  kind,  —  most  suited  to  the  nature  of  the 
Rubject,  and  most  likely  to  produce  a  steady  and  permanent  influ- 
ence. Sometimes  this  state  of  the  mind,  and  the  evidence  of 
other  related  truths,  may  be  the  only  proof  we  can  now  have  of  a 
very  important  truth.  And  yet  this  truth  may  be  as  clearly  ap- 
prehended and  as  firmly  believed,  and  may  exert  as  useful  an  influ- 
ence on  the  mind,  as  though  it  were  proved  in  any  other  way  what- 
ever. It  will  be  very  easy  for  those,  who  have  been  accustomed  to 
think  profoundly  ol5  moral  subjects,  to  recall  many  instances  of  this. 


322  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

The  foregoing  remarks  account  for  a  fact  of  frequent  occur- 
rence ;  namely ;  that  a  man  unhesitatingly  believes  a  particular 
truth,  and  yet  finds  it  very  difficult  to  exhibit  definitely  the  reasons 
of  his  behef.  The  evidence  in  such  a  case  may  be  so  concealed 
in  its  nature,  or  so  gradual  and  insensible  in  its  influence,  that  it 
will  be  difficult,  even  for  a  nice  observer  of  the  operations  of 
his  own  mind,  clearly  to  describe  it ;  and  quite  impossible,  for  those 
who  have  but  little  cultivation.  So  that  it  cannot  by  any  means 
be  considered  as  a  conclusive  argument  against  the  soundness  of  a 
man's  faith,  that  he  is  at  present  unable  distinctly  to  assign  the 
reasons  of  it.  The  manner  in  Avhich  he  was  brought  to  believe  the 
truth  may  have  been  perfectly  conformed  to  right  reason,  and  per- 
fectly satisfactory  ;  and  yet  he  may  not  have  the  skill  requisite  to 
trace  it  out,  and  describe  it.  To  be  prepared  for  this,  he  must 
have  some  acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  the  mind,  and  with  the 
manner  of  developing  its  principles  and  operations  in  proper  lan- 
guage. But  for  acquiring  this,  his  situation  may  afibrd  him  no 
adequate  advantages.  And  yet  that  same  situation  does  not 
necessarily  deprive  him  of  the  good  effects  of  a  rational  and  well 
established  faith. 

If  you  apply  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  to  the  subject 
under  consideration,  you  will  soon  be  satisfied,  that  the  want  of  an 
express,  positive  command  of  Scripture,  that  is,  a  command  in  so 
many  words,  that  infants  should  be  baptized,  is  not  to  be  considered 
as  a  valid  objectio7i  against  Infant  Baptism.  As  this  position  is 
of  special  importance,  I  shall  take  some  pains  to  illustrate  its  truth. 

Admitting,  as  we  must,  that  all  positive  religious  rites  are  orig- 
inally  founded  on  a  divine  command  ;  we  cannot  safely  conclude 
that  such  a  command  will  be  repeated  to  all  those  who  shall  after- 
wards be  under  obligation  to  observe  such  rites,  or  even  that  the 
original  command  will  be  preserved  and  communicated  to  them  in 
the  sacred  writings.  Neither  of  these  can  be  considered  as  in- 
dispensable ;  because  sufficient  evidence  of  a  divine  institution 
may  be  afforded  in  some  other  way.  It  may  be  afforded,  particu- 
larly, by  oral  instruction.  It  is  unquestionable,  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  some  extraordinary   events   of  providence,  or  of  some 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  823 

divine  injunctions  may  be  as  truly  and  as  certainly  communicated 
in  this  way,  as  in  others  ;  and  we  should,  in  many  cases,  consider 
a  man  who  should  refuse  to  admit  the  truth  and  authority  of  such 
a  communication  to  be  as  unreasonable,  as  if  he  sliould  refuse  to 
admit  the  truth  and  authority  of  written  or  printed  records. 

If  we  should  insist  upon  the  express  repetition  of  a  divine  com- 
mand at  different  times,  or  upon  a  written  record  of  it,  as  indis- 
pensable ;  we  should  overlook  one  of  the  methods  which  God  has 
manifestly  adopted  in  regard  to  the  positive  institutions  of  reli- 
gion. For  example  ;  what  clear  and  certain  proof  have  we,  that 
the  divine  command,  enjoining  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  or 
the  offering  of  sacrifices,  was  expressly  repeated  to  the  successive 
generations  of  men  from  Adam  to  Moses ;  or  that  they  derived 
either  of  those  divine  institutions  from  historical  records  ?  And 
what  direct,  certain  proof  is  there  of  the  repetition  of  the 
divine  command,  or  the  existence  of  any  historical  records,  during 
the  period  from  Abraham  to  Moses,  respecting  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision ?  And  to  come  down  to  later  times ;  what  express  com- 
mand has  God  given  to  us,  or  to  any  Christians  since  the  days  of 
the  apostles,  requiring  the  first  day  of  the  week  to  be  observed  as 
a  Sabbath  ?  And  what  express  declaration  have  we  in  the  sacred 
records,  that  such  a  command  was  ever  given  either  by  Christ  or 
his  apostles  ?  In  regard  to  this,  we  who  observe  the  Christian 
Sabbath  must  either  say,  that  a  positive  divine  command  has  been 
given  directly  to  ns ;  or  that  a  command,  originally  given  by 
Christ,  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  the  Scriptures,  —  neither  of 
which  are  we  able  to  say  ;  —  or  we  must  justify  ourselves  in 
observing  the  Lord's  day,  because  some  other  considerations  show 
that  such  is  the  will  of  God.  On  what  ground  then  shall  we  pro- 
ceed in  regard  to  this  subject  ?  We  have  no  express  command  from 
God  particularly  to  us,  and  no  record  of  any  former  command, 
authorizing  us  to  regard  the  Lord's  day  as  a  divine  institution. 
Are  we  then  to  fall  in  with  the  prevailing  practice  in  regard  to  a 
religious  rite,  merely  because  we  judge  it  becoming  and  useful  ? 
By  no  means.  We  must  then  rest  the  Christian  Sabbath  on  the 
ground  of  the  original  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  as  enjoined  in 


324  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  Decalogue.  And  we  must  at  the  same  time  admit,  that  the 
original  institution  was  particularly  modified  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Christian  dispensation,  although  such  a  modification  is  no 
where  expressly  required  in  the  Scriptures.  It  must  be  evident 
therefore,  that  if  we  should  insist  upon  the  necessity  of  an  express 
divine  precept,  either  originall}'  addressed  to  us,  or  transmitted  to 
us  by  the  sacred  records,  in  order  to  justify  us  in  observing  the 
rite  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  we  should  contradict  our  own  practice  in 
regard  to  another  important  subject  very  analogous  to  this. 

And  what  shall  we  say  in  regard  to  female  communion  f  The 
Lord's  Supper  is  allowed  to  be  a  divine  institution.  But  it  was 
enjoined  originally  upon  the  apostles.  Christ  did  not  give  the 
command  to  females  ;  and  there  is  no  express  mention  in  the  New 
Testament  of  their  having  ever  received  the  Lord's  Supper.  We 
all  believe  it  to  be  the  will  of  God  that  they  should  partake.  But 
how  do  we  prove  this  ?  Not  by  any  express  command  of  Christ. 
Not  by  any  definite  account  in  the  Scriptures  that  they  did 
actually  partake.  The  argument  on  which  Ave  rest  is  derived 
from  the  reasonableness  of  the  thing  ;  from  the  uniform  practice 
of  the  early  Christian  churches,  as  set  forth  in  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory ;  and  from  Avhat  appears  to  be  implied  in  the  Scripture 
account.  That  is,  we  believe  God  has  made  known  his  will,  that 
pious  women  should  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Avithout  the 
least  appearance  of  any  express  command  requiring  it,  and  with- 
out any  mention  in  the  Scriptures  of  their  ever  having  partaken 
in  the  first  Christian  churches.  The  single  question  is,  by  what 
evidence  we  are  satisfied  that  they  ought  to  partake  ?  And  if  we 
are  satisfied  in  this  case,  without  any  express  command ;  why 
should  we  not  be  in  the  other  case  ? 

Thus  we  plead,  that  Infant  Baptism  rests  on  the  same  kind  of 
evidence  Avith  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  with  female  communion,  and  with  the  offering  of  sacrifices 
in  the  patriarchal  age  from  Adam  to  Moses  ;  that  is,  it  is  sustained 
by  good  usage,  by  the  uniform  practice  of  the  church,  founded 
originally  on  the  revealed  will  of  Christ  and  attested  to  us  by  credi- 
ble history.     To  ascertain  what  the  apostles  tauglvt  and  what  they 


INFANT    BAPTISM-.  825 

did,  we  must  look  not  simply  to  those  inspired  writings  of  theirs 
which  are  transmitted  to  us,  but  to  the  constitution  and  practice 
of  the  churches  which  thev  established. 

My  object  in  this  place  is  to  remove  a  mistake  as  to  the  kind 
and  degree  of  evidence  which  should  be  deemed  conclusive,  and 
to  show  that  demanding  an  express  precept  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, that  is,  demanding  a  new  and  explicit  command,  a  command 
in  so  many  words,  enjoining  Infant  Baptism,  would  be  unreasona- 
ble and  inconsistent.  I  wish  every  man  to  settle  it  in  his  mind 
perfectly  and  forever,  that,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  other  evidence 
ought  to  be  received  and  is  received  as  satisfactory. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  we  did  not  originate  the  human 
mind,  nor  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  religion,  nor  the  evi- 
dence which  obliges  us  to  believe  those  doctrines,  and  observe 
those  institutions.  The  faculties  of  the  mind,  the  doctrines  and 
institutions  of  religion,  and  the  evidence  which  supports  them,  are 
all  of  God.  The  manner  in  which  he  has  made  known  his  will, 
and  the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  he  has  afforded  in 
favor  of  the  truths  and  duties  of  religion,  are  unquestionably  con- 
formed to  our  intellectual  and  moral  constitution  ;  and  they  are 
specially  suited  to  excite  us  to  diligent  efforts  ;  to  give  due  exer- 
cise to  candor  and  humility ;  to  make  us  feel  the  necessity  of 
being  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit ;  and  finally,  to  produce  such  a 
conviction  in  us,  as  will  best  subserve  the  purposes  of  moral  disci- 
pline. It  is  not  God's  way  to  give  us  evidence  of  the  highest 
kind  and  degree  possible.  As  to  many  moral  and  religious  truths, 
the  evidence  which  supports  them  is  far  from  being  so  clear  and 
certain  as  we  might  desire.  It  comes  indirectly.  It  comes  in  the 
■way  of  inference  from  other  truths  more  plain  and  obvious.  It 
sometimes  consists  in  a  kind  of  instinctive  moral  discernment,  a 
spontaneous  operation  of  our  faculties,  which  cannot  be  easily 
described.  Sometimes  it  is  the  slow  result  of  experience  and 
observation.  And  if  a  precept  or  institution  is  concerned,  depend- 
ing ultimately  for  its  authority  on  a  divine  revelation  ;  that  reve- 
lation is  oftentimes  communicated  to  us  through  the  channel  of 
history  or  oral  instruction.     It  is  manifestly  our  duty,  as  intelli- 

VOL.  III.  28 


326  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

gent  beings,  to  hold  ourselves  ready  to  receive  just  such  evidence 
as  God  is  pleased  to  afford.  And  if  any  of  us  should  undertake 
to  prescribe  to  him,  or  to  determine  beforehand  what  evidence  we 
must  have  to  satisfy  our  faith  ;  and  if  we  should  reject  everything, 
which  is  not  attended  with  just  such  evidence  as  we  might 
desire ;  we  should  give  up  some  if  not  all  of  the  most  important 
moral  truths,  and  should  fall  into  a  state  of  skepticism,  most  fearful 
in  its  influence  on  our  present  and  our  eternal  interests. 


LECTURE    CXI. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


In  the  last  Lecture,  I  endeavored  to  show,  that  tJiere  being 
no  express  declaration  of  Scripture,  no  conwiand  in  so  many 
words,  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  is  not  a  valid  argument 
against  it. 

I  now  proceed  to  say,  that  there  is  a  special  consideration  in 
relation  to  this  particular  rite,  which  will  give  additional  force  to 
the  remarks  I  have  made,  and  will  show  still  more  clearly  that  no 
one  can  properly  demand  a  direct,  express  precept  of  Scripture 
for  baptizing  children,  and  that  other  evidence  should  be  received 
as  satisfactory.  The  consideration  is,  that  a  religious  rite  of  long 
standing,  and  intended  for  the  same  general  purposes  with 
baptism,  had,  by  express  appointment  of  Grod,  been  uniformly 
applied  to  infant  children.  The  existence  of  such  a  rite,  and  the 
high  importance  which  was  universally  attached  to  it  by  the  people 
of  God,  would  make  it  easy  to  substitute  in  its  place  a  rite  of  the 
same  general  import,  though  different  in  form.  This  last  rite, 
indicating  generally  the  same  thing  with  the  former,  would  require 
less  formality  of  divine  injunction  —  less  appearance  of  interposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  God  to  introduce  it,  than  would  be  necessary  to 
introduce  an  institution  whose  design  and  application  were  entirely 
new.  Those  Christians,  who  had  been  familiar  with  the  previous 
rite  of  infant  circumcision,  that  is,  the  previous  mode  of  consecrat- 
ing children  to  God,  must  have  been  predisposed  in  favor  of  Infant 
Baptism,  and  must  have  been  ready,  at  any  intimation  of  Christ 


828  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

or  his  apostles,  at  once  to  receive  it.  They  must  have  been 
ready  to  fall  in  with  it,  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  pubUc  conse- 
cration of  children  to  God  by  a  religious  rite  had  for  many  ages 
been  a  standing  practice  in  the  church.  It  came  not  from  Moses, 
but  from  Abraham,  the  father  of  those  who  believe  in  all  nations. 
Now  what  is  the  consecration  of  children  to  God  by  baptism,  but 
a  previous  appointment  of  God,  that  is,  the  appointment  of  infant 
circumcision,  so  modified  as  to  agree  with  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion ?  In  such  a  case,  especially  if  the  original  institution  was 
held  in  high  estimation,  and  attended  with  high  endearments  ; 
what  more  could  be  deemed  necessary,  than  that  the  will  of  God 
should  be  made  known,  as  to  the  new  form  of  the  rite  ?  After 
such  an  expression  of  the  divine  will,  that  is,  the  appointment  of 
baptism,  we  should  think  that  the  dedication  of  children  to  God 
under  the  new  form  of  the  rite,  would  immediately  go  into  prac- 
tice. It  is  quite  manifest,  that  in  the  case  now  under  considera- 
tion, there  was  less  occasion  for  an  express  command  from  God  to 
give  sanction  to  the  new  rite,  that  is,  to  the  7ieiv  form  of  conse- 
cration, than  if  no  rite  of  similar  import  had  existed  before ;  I  might 
rather  say,  no  occasion  at  all. 

In  several  respects  you  will  perceive  a  striking  analogy  between 
the  institution  of  Infant  Baptism  and  that  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath. The  institution  of  the  seventh  day  as  a  sabbath  had  been 
established  from  the  creation  of  the  world.  Under  the  reign  of 
Christ,  the  original  institution  was  to  undergo  a  certain  modifica- 
tion. But  how  was  this  modification  effected  ?  How  was  the 
Christian  church  brought  to  give  up  the  seventh  day,  and  to 
observe  the  first,  as  a  Sabbath  ?  Was  an  express  divine  com- 
mand formally  announced  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  day  ?  Did 
God  expressly  bless  the  first  day  and  sanctify  it,  as  he  had  blessed 
and  sanctified  the  seventh  day  in  Paradise  ?  Or  did  he  come 
forth  in  his  majesty,  as  he  had  done  on  Sinai,  and  say  in  the 
hearing  of  the  apostles  and  early  Christians,  the  first  day  is  the 
Sabbath  —  keep  that  day  holy  to  the  Lord  ?  And  was  such  a  com- 
mand as  this  put  on  record  by  the  inspired  writers,  and  transmit- 
ted from  one  generation  to  another,  as  the  fourth  command  in  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  329 

Decalogue  was  ?  Nothing-like  this  has  taken  place  ;  nor  have  we 
thought  it  necessary.  How  then  have  we  been  brought  to  give 
up  the  seventh  day  as  a  Sabbath,  and  to  keep  the  first  in  its 
place  ?  We  find  no  command  of  Christ  or  his  apostles.  And  we 
find  no  express  declaration  of  Scripture,  that  the  apostles  and  first 
Christians  uniformly  kept  the  first  day  as  a  Sabbath.  But  we  are 
satisfied,  because  there  are  several  things  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles, 
which  plainly  impli/  that  they  did  so  ;  and  because,  in  addition  to 
this,  we  have  clear  historical  evidence  that  the  Lord's  day  was 
generally  observed  by  the  early  Christian  churches,  and  that  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  gradually  fell  into  disuse.  Thus,  on  the 
ground  of  what  was  practised  by  those  who  lived  near  the  apostles, 
and  who  had  the  best  advantages  to  form  a  correct  judgment, 
and  because  too,  though  without  any  express  declaration  of  Scripture, 
there  is  reason  to  think,  that  such  was  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles ;  we  feel  ourselves  authorized  and  obliged  to  observe  the  first 
day  of  the  week  as  a  Sabbath.  But  would  Christians  have  been 
80  easily  satisfied  of  their  obligations  to  keep  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, had  there  not  been  a  weekly  Sabbath,  a  sacred  day,  enjoined 
by  divine  command,  and  uniformly  observed  by  God's  people  in 
preceding  ages  ?  The  more  seriously  I  have  reflected  on  this 
subject,  the  more  fully  have  I  become  satisfied,  that  the  previous 
existence  of  similar  observances  must  have  produced  such  an 
efiect  on  the  minds  of  the  first  Jewish  Christians,  as  perfectly  to 
prepare  them  to  receive  the  Christian  Sabbath  and  Infant  Bap- 
tism, without  any  additional  enactment,  or  any  direct,  explicit 
declaration  whatever  in  their  favor.  But  they  could  not  have 
been  prepared  for  this,  had  these  institutions  been  altogether 
new.  And  it  seems  to  me  very  plain,  that  no  one  can  prove  the 
divine  authority  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  without  using  argu- 
ments very  similar  to  those  which  we  use  in  support  of  Infant 
Baptism. 

Having  considered  the  proper  mode  of  reasoning,  and  suggested 
what  seemed  necessary  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  fair  discussion  ; 
I  shall  proceed  to  the  considerations  which  bear  directly  upon  the 
subject  of  Infant  Baptism.     In  treating  this  subject,  I  shall  take 

28* 


330  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  liberty  to  follow  my  own  way  of  thinking,  and  shall  lay  before 
you  those  considerations  which  have  had  the  greatest  influence  on 
my  own  mind,  and  which,  after  much  anxious  inquiry,  have  con- 
ducted me  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

The  first  consideration  I  shall  suggest  is,  that  the  rite  of  Infant 
Baptism  manifestly  corresponds  with  the  natural  relation  between 
parents  and  children.  It  is  not  enough  to  say,  that  there  is  no 
inconsistency  between  the  two  things,  and  that  the  relation  of 
parents  and  children  can  afford  no  objection  against  Infant  Bap- 
tism. For  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  this  rite  has  a  perfect 
suitableness  to  the  relation  of  parents  and  children.  This  relation 
is  of  such  a  nature,  and  attended  with  such  circumstances,  that 
Infant  Baptism  becomes  obviously  and  in  the  highest  degree 
just  and  proper.  I  acknowledge  that  this  argument  does  not,  by 
itself,  prove  Infant  Baptism  to  have  been  appointed  by  God,  and 
to  be  obligatory  upon  Christians.  But  it  shows  that  its  appoint- 
ment would  have  a  perfect  fitness  and  propriety.  It  shows,  too, 
that  we  ought  readily  to  fall  in  with  the  practice,  if  there  is  any 
indication  of  God's  will  in  its  favor,  and  that  a  lower  degree  of 
evidence  is  sufficient  to  bring  us  under  obligation  to  adopt  it,  than 
if  it  had  no  such  obvious  fitness. 

This  view  of  the  subject  cannot  be  considered  as  objectionable 
by  any  one,  who  well  considers  how  we  form  our  opinions  in 
regard  to  many  other  subjects.  How,  for  instance,  do  we  reason 
in  regard  to  a  subject  before  referred  to,  that  is,  female  commuf 
nion  ?  We  say,  it  is  manifestly  suitable  ;  that  pious  women  have 
the  same  reason  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ,  as  pious 
men  ;  that  the  ordinance  being  enjoined  in  general  terms  is  a 
sufficient  indication  of  the  divine  will  in  regard  to  it,  and  that 
pious  women,  having  all  the  general  reasons  to  partake  of  the 
ordinance  with  pious  men,  have  a  fair  title  to  partake,  on  the 
ground  of  the  general  appointment,  without  waiting  for  a  command 
addressed  particularly  to  them.  But  we  could  not  think  such  a 
conclusion  correct,  if  there  were  no  evident  fitness  in  the  thing 
itself,  and  if  an  express  divine  precept,  enjoining  female  commu- 
nion, were  considered  to  be  essential. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  331 

The  same  as  to  the  Lord's  day.  We  perceive  it  to  be  altogether 
just  and  proper,  that  so  important  an  event  as  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  should  be  commemorated,  and  that  the  day  on  which  it 
took  place,  should  be  consecrated  to  the  honor  of  the  Saviour  by 
all  his  followers.  In  this  way  we  are  prepared  to  think  favorably  of 
changing  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  day  to  i\iQ  first.  And  being 
thus  impressed  with  the  fitness  of  the  thing,  we  are  easily  satisfied 
with  the  circumstances,  which  indicate  that  this  is  the  will  of  God. 
When  we  find  that  the  apostles  and  first  Christians  observed  that 
day,  and  that  it  became  the  practice  of  the  regular  Christian  churches 
universally  to  do  so  ;  we  feel  at  once  that  the  practice  was  suitable ; 
that  it  corresponded  with  the  nature  and  ends  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  that  what  the  apostles  and  first  Christians  did,  man- 
ifested the  pleasure  of  God ;  and  so  without  suspicion,  we  fall  in 
with  the  prevailing  practice.  But  had  we  no  such  perception  of 
the  fitness  of  the  thing ;  how  could  prevailing  practice  have  such 
an  eflfect  upon  us  ? 

In  forming  our  judgment  on  such  a  subject  as  this,  we  should 
keep  in  mind,  that  God  has  given  us  reason  and  moral  sense,  and 
thus  rendered  us  capable  of  discerning  the  relations  of  things,  and 
of  determining,  in  most  cases,  what  is  suitable  to  those  relations ; 
and  that  it  is  often  in  this  way  only,  that  we  are  able  to  discover 
the  will  of  God. 

The  relation  existing  between  parents  and  children  is  seldom 
taken  into  serious  consideration  ;  and  it  is  still  more  seldom  the  case, 
that  its  nature  and  importance  are  rightly  apprehended.  A  little 
attention  to  the  circumstances  of  this  relation,  particularly  to  the 
affections  which  attend  it,  the  obligations  involved  in  it,  and  the 
consequences  resulting  from  it,  will  satisfy  any  one,  that  it  is  among 
the  most  interesting  and  momentous  relations  on  earth. 

Every  human  being  from  the  commencement  of  his  existence, 
is  the  object  of  an  affection  indescribably  ardent  and  tender.  This 
affection  which  lodges  in  the  hearts  of  parents,  and  results  neces- 
sarily from  the  constitution  they  have  received  from  their  Creator, 
is  universal,  except  where  that  constitution  is  dreadfully  perverted. 
Whenever  a  child  is  born,  an  affection  springs  up  in  the  hearts  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 

his  parents,  which  will  afford  protection  to  his  weakness  and  supply 
to  his  wants  ;  which  will  prompt  them  to  constant,  untiring  labors, 
and  make  it  even  a  pleasure  to  forego  the  common  gratifications  of 
life,  and  to  endure  self-denial,  watching,  and  fatigue,  for  the  sake 
of  that  helpless  being  who  is  intrusted  to  their  care.  For  a  time 
this  affection  operates  without  rational  intercourse,  and  without  any 
return  of  service  or  even  of  gratitude  from  the  offspring.  Parental 
affection  is  fixed  and  durable.  Causes  which  extinguish  other 
kinds  of  affection,  generally  leave  this  in  all  its  strength,  and  often 
prove  an  occasion  of  increasing  its  warmth  and  activity.  The 
affection  of  parents,  instead  of  ceasing  with  the  feebleness  and  the 
wants  of  their  offspring,  extends  its  kind  regards  over  his  whole  life, 
and  when  regulated  by  religious  principle,  aims  at  nothing  less  than 
to  promote  his  happiness  through  an  immortal  existence. 

Now  the  mere  fact  that  the  relation  of  parents  to  their  offspring 
is  attended  with  an  affection  of  so  unparalleled  a  nature,  marks  this 
relation  as  one  of  vast  consequence,  and  indicates  that  God  intended 
to  make  it  subservient  to  the  most  important  ends  in  his  government. 

This  relation  involves  high  obligations.  The  precepts  of  God's 
word  on  this  subject  are  such  as  sound  reason  must  approve.  Par 
rents  are  required  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord.  The  duties  of  parents  are  so  various  and 
constant,  that,  if  rightly  performed,  they  must  occupy  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  human  Ufe  ;  and  they  are  so  arduous,  as  to  require 
their  diligent  and  pious  efforts.  These  duties  are  so  important, 
that  they  cannot  be  neglected,  without  consequences  exceedingly 
perilous  to  the  interests  of  the  church  and  the  world.  The  duties 
of  parents,  and  the  influence  which  they  ought  to  possess  over  their 
children,  must  generally  be  considered  as  the  chief  means  of 
forming  the  character  of  the  rising  generation,  and  preparing 
them  for  usefulness  ;  the  chief  means  of  saving  the  souls  of  men, 
and  propagating  the  Christian  religion  from  one  generation  to 
another. 

These  remarks  are  all  confirmed  by  the  word  and  providence  of 
God.  From  the  beginning  of  the  world,  the  character  and  con- 
dition of  children  have  generally  resulted  from  the   conduct  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  333 

parents.  The  peculiar  character  of  a  tribe  or  nation  has  commonly 
been  derived  from  the  character  of  its  father  or  head.  This  extends 
to  the  religious,  as  well  as  to  the  social  and  secular  character.  The 
history  of  the  Christian  church  shows  that  after  it  has  once  been 
established  in  any  place,  it  has  chiefly  depended  for  its  continuance 
and  increase  upon  the  labors  of  parents  to  promote  the  piety  of 
their  children. 

The  foregoing  remarks  are  not  offered  as  proof  that  God  does 
in  fixct  require  that  children  should  be  baptized ;  but  to  show  that 
Infant  Baptism  has  an  obvious  fitness.  If  the  relation  between 
parents  and  children  is  so  vastly  important,  it  is  manifestly  proper 
that  it  should  have  some  mark  set  upon  it,  to  show  in  what  estima- 
tion it  is  held  by  the  Creator  of  the  world.  And  as  this  relation 
involves  the  most  momentous  duties,  and  the  highest  interests  of  the 
Boul,  it  is  manifestly  proper  that  it  should  be  marked  by  a  religious 
rite.  If  a  public  religious  rite  may  be  properly  used  for  the  purpose 
of  impressing  truth  or  duty  on  the  minds  of  men  in  any  case,  it  may 
be  in  this.  Thus  the  considerations  above  stated,  though  they  do  not 
directly  prove  Infant  Baptism  to  be  a  divine  institution,  are  sufficient 
to  show  that  such  a  religious  rite  entirely  corresponds  with  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  relation  between  parents  and  children,  and  that 
it  is  very  fit  and  reasonable  that  such  a  relation  and  the  duties 
involved  in  it  should  be  marked  by  some  expressive  sign. 

The  second  consideration  which  I  shall  offer  is,  that  the  relation 
between  parents  and  children,  and  the  consecration  of  both  to  Crody 
was  actually  marked  by  a  divinely  appointed  and  significant  rite, 
through  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  economy. 

Keep  in  mind,  that  the  same  rite  was  appointed  for  parents  and 
children.  Consider  too,  that  this  rite,  intended  for  children  as 
"well  as  parents,  did  not  originate  in  the  Mosaic  ritual,  but  in  the 
family  of  Abraham,  the  father  of  all  believers  whether  Jews  or 
gentiles,  and  was  practised  among  the  Israelites  from  generation 
to  generation. 

It  is  equally  true  that  the  import  of  the  rite  was  not  varied  at  all 
by  the  application  of  it  to  servants.  For  they  stood  in  a  near 
relation  to  their  masters,  and  were  circumcised  on  account  of  that 


S34  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

relation.  The  rite  surely  could  not  denote  anything  less  in  reference 
to  children,  because  it  was  applied  in  a  secondary  -vvay  to  others. 

This  rite  evidently  had  Sk  primary  relation  to  sjwmYwaZ  blessings. 
It  was  a  confirmation  of  that  most  gracious  and  spiritual  promise 
which  God  made  to  Abraham,  /  will  he  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy 
seed.  Circumcision,  the  Apostle  tells  us,  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith  u'hich  Abraham  had  while  uncircumcised. 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  posterity  did  indeed  include 
a  great  variety  of  temporal  blessings ;  particularly,  their  title  to 
the  land  of  Canaan,  and  all  their  institutions  and  laws  relating  to 
their  worldly  state.  And  it  is  equally  true  that  all  necessary  tem- 
poral blessings  are  promised  to  believers  under  the  new  covenant. 
"  Godliness  is  profitable  unto  all  things,  having  the  promise  of  the 
life  that  now  is,  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come.  "  But  these 
temporal  blessings  in  both  cases  are  to  be  considered  only  as  ap- 
pendages of  the  spiritual  good  secured  to  the  obedient  by  the  divine 
promises.  The  promises  of  the  former  economy  were  in  truth  aa 
high  and  spiritual,  as  any  contained  in  the  Christian  Scriptures ; 
and  the  principal  one,  I  will  be  your  God,  is  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  involving  the  most  precious  gospel  blessings.  Heb. 
8:  10.  2  Cor.  6:  16.  See  also  Isa.  44:  3.  "  I  will  pour  my  Spirit 
upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring.  "  The  Old 
Testament  economy  contained  the  most  spiritual  and  holy  precepts. 
It  contained  the  decalogue,  and  various  other  commands,  requiring 
holiness  of  heart  and  life.  '  The  character  which  God  exhibited 
was  the  same  under  the  former  dispensation,  as  under  the  latter. 
The  character  which  he  required  of  those  who  were  under  the 
former  economy,  was  the  same  as  he  required  of  the  followers  of 
Christ.  Tlioit  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  lieart.  Be 
ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy.  Deut.  6:  5.  Lev.  20:  7.  Matt.  22:  37. 
1  Pet.  1:  15,  16. 

It  may  indeed  be  alleged,  that  the  Israelites,  as  a  nation,  were 
not  holy  ;  that  they  did  not  render  to  God  a  sincere  spiritual  service, 
and  that  the  economy,  under  which  they  were  placed,  did  not 
secure  to  them  spiritual  blessings.  This  is  true.  But  this  is  not 
to  be  charged  to  that  system  of  laws  and  rites  and  promises,  which 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  335 

God  gave  for  their  benefit,  but  to  themselves.  Had  they  conformed 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  that  economy,  circumcision  would  have 
been  an  actual  confirmation  of  spiritual  blessings  to  them.  Now 
surely  we  are  not  to  judge  of  the  former  economy  from  the  char- 
acter of  those  who  were  placed  under  it.  As  a  general  fact,  their 
character  was  directly  contrary  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the 
economy; — as  really  so,  as  the  character  of  the  bulk  of  nominal 
Christians  in  the  most  corrupt  age  of  the  church  has  been  contrary 
to  the  design  of  the  Christian  economy.  But  who  would  think  of 
urging  the  degraded,  corrupt  character  exhibited  at  any  time  by 
nominal  Christians,  as  a  proof  that  the  Christian  dispensation  was 
not  intended  to  be  of  a  spiritual  nature,  or  that  its  rites  were  not 
intended  to  be  signs  of  spiritual  blessings  ?  No  distinction  can 
be  more  obvious,  than  that  between  the  real  nature  of  a  divine 
economy,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  used  by  those  who  are 
placed  under  it.  As  to  the  former  economy,  the  question  is  not, 
what  was  the  actual  character  of  the  Israelites  ;  but  what  was  the 
character  which  they  ought  to  have  possessed,  —  the  character 
which  the  precepts  and  the  spirit  of  the  dispensation  required  them 
to  possess  ?  Now  if,  from  generation  to  generation,  they  had  been 
obedient  and  holy  according  to  the  laws  of  that  economy;  who 
could  ever  have  doubted  that  the  economy  was  a  spiritual  one,  and 
that  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  spiritual  blessings  ?  So  far  as  they 
kept  God's  covenant,  it  was  in  fact  a  seal  of  spiritual  blessings 
both  to  parents  and  children.  It  set  forth  God's  design,  that  the 
true  religion,  with  all  its  attendant  benefits,  should,  by  means  of 
parental  faithfulness  and  prayer,  be  transmitted  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another.  And  if  the  Israelites  universally  from  Abraham 
to  Christ  had  truly  conformed  to  that  divine  institution  ;  then 
circumcision  would  have  been  in  fact  what  it  was  designed  to  be,  a 
confirmation  of  God's  promise,  I  will  he  a  Grod  to  thee  and  thy 
seed.  And  let  me  repeat  it,  that  the  nature  and  design  of  a  rite, 
instituted  by  God,  cannot  be  altered  by  the  disobedience  and  per- 
verseness  of  men. 

I  well  know  that  there  are  some  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  especially  in   the   Epistle  to  the   Galatians,  and   to  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Hebrews,  which  seem  at  first  view  to  militate  against  what  I  have 
advanced  in  regard  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Mosaic  economy. 
This  is  a  subject  which  requires  a  longer  and  more  minute  investi- 
gation than  would  be  proper  in  this  place.  I  must  therefore  refer 
you  to  what  others  have  written,  after  suggesting  two  things,  which 
I  think  very  obvious. 

First.  The  Apostle  in  his  whole  argument  in  Gal.  iii.  makes  a 
distinction  between  the  3Iosaic  economy,  or  law,  and  God's  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  ;  and  he  takes  special  pains  to  teach,  that  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  was  unalterable  ;  that  believers  in  Christ 
come  under  that  very  covenant ;  that  they  are  Abraham'' s  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,  that  is,  the  promise  made 
to  Abraham ;  and  that  it  is  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  —  the 
blessing  promised  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  which  all  believers 
inherit.  It  must  therefore  be  obvious,  that  whatever  there  was  in 
the  Mosaic  economy  which  was  earthly  and  changeable,  God\ 
covenant  with  Abraham  was  spiritual  and  immutable,  securing  all 
the  blessings  to  which  believers  in  Christ  are  entitled.  And  it 
must  not  be  forgotten,  that  circumcision  was  first  appointed  to  be 
the  seal,  not  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  but  of  tids  spiritual  and  im- 
mutable covenant  of  Grod  with  Abraham. 

Second.  When  in  Heb.  viii.  the  writer  says,  that  the  first 
covenant,  (evidently  meaning  the  Mosaic  or  Sinai  covenant,)  was 
faulty  and  ineffectual,  that  it  had  waxed  old  and  was  ready  to 
vanish  away  ;  he  evidently  refers  to  the  Levitical  Priesthood  and 
the  ancient  ritual,  which  were  both  appointed  only  for  temporary 
purposes,  and  were  to  cease  after  the  death  of  Christ.  How  then 
does  the  passage  prove  that  a  spiritual  and  unchangeable  covenant, 
the  same  as  the  one  made  with  Abraham,  was  not  contained  in  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  ?  The  spiritual  precepts  and  promises  found 
there,  prove  that  such  a  covenant  was  contained.  Accordingly, 
circumcision,  though  it  was  connected  with  the  Mosaic  ritual  and 
made  a  part  of  it,  was  still,  through  that  whole  dispensation, 
"what  it  was  originally  designed  to  be,  a  confirmation  to  all  true 
saints  of  the  spiritual  blessings  secured  by  God^s  covenant  with 
Abraham. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  337 

The  general  position  then  stands  firm,  thsii  the  covenant,  of  which 
circumcision  was  appointed  to  be  the  seal,  was  spiritual,  gracious 
and  immutable* 


*  This  principle  is  ably  and,  I  think,  unanswerably  defended  by  Kev.  Ralph 
Wardlaw,  D.  D.  in  his  Dissertation  on  Infant  Baptism. 

VOL.  III.  29 


LECTURE     CXII. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


We  now  come  to  the  introduction  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
and  the  appointment  of  Baptism  as  a  sign  of  discipleship  to 
Christ,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  a  seal  of  God's  covenant  with 
beUevers. 

I  remark,  first,  ihsitthe  Christian  religion  was  evidently  founded 
upon  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures^  and  tvas,  for  substance,  a 
continuation  of  the  religion  there  taught.  Christ  frequently 
declares,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  make  known 
his  character,  and  the  principles  of  his  gospel.  He  appeals  to  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  for  the  confirmation  of 
what  he  taught.  The  apostles  do  the  same,  and  clearly  make  it 
known  to  be  their  wish,  that  the  soundness  of  their  instructions 
should  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures.  And  we  well  know  that, 
whenever  they  speak  of  the  Scriptures,  they  refer  to  the  Old 
Testament.  Carefully  peruse  the  gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  epistles,  and  see  in  what  manner  Christ  and  the 
apostles  treat  the  Scriptures,  and  how  they  labor  to  show,  that 
Christianity  is  not  a  new  religion,  but,  as  to  its  substance,  is  the 
very  religion  which  was  taught  in  the  laAv  and  the  prophets  ;  — 
from  which  consideration  they  justly  conclude,  that  no  man  can 
reject  Christianity  without  rejecting  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  that  no  one  can  truly  beUeve  those  Scriptures  without  believ- 
ing Christianity. 

I  cannot  think  that  any  quotations  in  proof  of  the  foregoing 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  339 

remarks  will  be  thought  necessary  by  those  who  are  conversant 
with  the  Scriptures. 

From  such  a  view  of  the  subject  it  seems  very  natural  to  con- 
clude, that  any  general  principle  of  religion,  and  any  practice, 
established  under  the  former  economy,  will  be  continued,  though 
it  may  be  in  a  different  form,  under  the  Christian  economy,  unless 
the  reasons  have  ceased  on  which  that  principle  or  practice  was 
founded,  or  unless  God  has  expressly  set  it  aside.  For  example  ; 
it  is  just  to  conclude  that  public  worship,  which  was  established 
under  the  former  dispensation,  will  be  continued  under  the  latter, 
though  doubtless  with  such  changes  in  the  form,  as  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Christian  economy  shall  require.  If  Christ  or  his 
apostles  ever  intimated  to  the  Jews,  that  a  change  was  called  for 
in  the  spirit  of  their  religion,  they  did  it,  unquestionably,  with 
reference  to  the  corruptions  and  abuses  which  had  prevailed,  not 
with  reference  to  the  religion  which  was  actually  taught  in  the 
Scriptures. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  which  has  already  been  referred 
to,  furnishes  another  illustration  of  the  propriety  of  our  reasoning 
on  the  present  subject.  This  institution  which  was  established  in 
Paradise,  rests  on  the  authority  of  God  and  on  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  our  intellectual  and  moral  nature.  There  must  be  a 
sacred  day, — a  day  devoted  to  the  worship  of  God.  There  is 
tiie  same  reason  for  it  under  both  dispensations.  The  change 
then,  if  there  be  any,  must  relate  to  outward  form  and  circum- 
stance. By  the  will  of  him  who  is  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  the 
particular  day  to  be  observed  under  the  Christian  economy  is  dif- 
ferent, and  the  observance  attended  with  fewer  and  simpler  cere- 
monies. Still  there  is  a  sacred  day  every  week  under  the  present 
dispensation,  as  really  as  there  was  under  the  Jewish  or  Patriarchal. 
In  respect  to  the  necessity  and  utility  of  such  a  day,  and  the 
command  of  God  to  observe  it,  there  is  no  change. 

The  same  appears  to  be  true  in  regard  to  the  subject  under 
consideration.  There  must  be  a  seal  of  God's  gracious  covenant, 
and  of  the  relation  which  his  people  sustain  to  him.  The  impor- 
tance of  such  a  seal  to  promote  in  the  highest  degree  the  ends  of 


840  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

religion,  must  be  obnous  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the  con- 
stitution of  the  human  mind  ;  and  it  must  be  equally  obvious  in  all 
ages.  It  is  reasonable  therefore  to  think,  that,  under  both  dis- 
pensations, God's  covenant  will  have  a  seal,  whatever  difference 
there  may  be  in  the  form  of  it.  Why  should  not  the  momentous 
and  unalterable  relation  of  children  to  parents,  and  of  both  to 
God,  be  marked  by  a  religious  rite  now,  as  well  as  formerly  ? 
According  to  the  will  of  God,  that  rite,  under  the  former  economy, 
was  circumcision  ;  under  the  present,  it  is  baptism.  The  general 
import  of  both  is  the  same. 

I  remark,  secondly,  that  we  can  hy  no  means  conclude  that  our 
Saviour  did  not  give  his  apostles  specific  instructions  on  this  or 
any  other  subject,  merely  because  such  instructions  are  not  pre- 
served in  the  records  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Evangelists 
have  given  us  no  more  than  a  very  summary  account  of  what 
Christ  taught  during  his  public  ministry.  They  could  do  nothing 
more  than  this,  as  John  plainly  suggests  at  the  end  of  his  gospel, 
where  he  tells  us,  that  if  all  should  be  written,  ike  world  itself 
could  not  contain  the  books.  We  are  not,  however,  to  infer  from 
this,  that  the  instructions  of  Christ,  which  are  not  found  in  the 
sacred  records,  were  unimportant ;  or  that  they  had  no  effect,  or 
were  of  no  use  ;  or  even  that  their  effect  does  not  reach  to  the 
present  day,  or  that  they  are  of  no  use  to  us.  They  were  designed 
to  have  their  primary  and  direct  influence  on  the  apostles  them- 
selves, who  were  to  be  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  were, 
at  the  commencement  of  Christ's  reign,  to  give  a  right  direction  to 
all  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom.  Accordingly,  the  effect  of  Christ's 
instructions  to  them  must  have  appeared  in  the  constitution  and 
form  of  the  churches  which  they  established.  In  various  respects 
this  is  the  only  method  in  which  it  is  possible  for  us  to  determine 
what  Christ's  instructions  were.  And  under  proper  restrictions, 
it  is  a  just  and  satisfactory  method. 

From  the  effects  which  the  apostles  produced,  we  may  learn 
"what  they  did.  And  from  what  they  did  we  may  learn  what  in- 
structions they  received  from  Christ.  In  this  way  we  proceed  in 
regard  to  the  Passover,  and  the  Seventh-day  Sabbath.     There  is 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  341 

no  record  of  any  direction  of  Christ  to  set  aside  either  of  them. 
But  we  find  that  they  were  set  aside  among  those  Christians 
whom  the  apostles  taught.  From  this  we  may  reasonably  con- 
clude what  instructions  the  apostles  gave  ;  and  then,  what  they 
received  from  Christ.  And  we  form  this  conclusion  respecting 
the  last,  without  the  record  of  any  command  or  counsel  from 
Christ  to  his  apostles,  or  from  the  apostles  to  Christian  converts. 
We  find,  further,  that  Christians  did,  in  some  special  sense, 
observe  the  first  day  of  the  week.  This  the  sacred  records 
clearly  show.  We  learn  from  other  sources,  that  while  the 
Seventh-day  Sabbath  gradually  ceased  to  be  observed  in  the 
primitive  churches,  the  Lord's  day  was  observed  in  its  place. 
From  these  circumstances  we  infer  what  the  apostles  taught  the 
first  Christians,  and  what  they  themselves  were  taught  by  Christ, 
or  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  I  venture  to  say,  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment had  been  altogether  silent  respecting  the  first  day  of  the 
week  bemg  made  a  sacred  day,  and  if  we  only  found  that  the 
Christian  church  does  now  uniformly  observe  the  Lord's  day  as  a 
Sabbath,  and  that  this  has  been  the  case  from  the  time  of  the  first 
Christian  churches  ;  we  should  be  satisfied  that  such  was  the  will 
of  Christ ;  that  he  had  so  instructed  the  apostles,  and  that  they 
had  so  instructed  the  first  Christians. 

The  same  general  remarks  apply  to  the  present  subject.  Be  it 
so,  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any  definite  instruc- 
tions of  Christ  to  the  apostles,  or  of  the  apostles  to  Christians,  in 
regard  to  the  baptism  of  little  children.  Can  we  infer  from  this, 
that  no  definite  instructions  were  given  ?  Such  instructions 
might  have  produced  the  effect  designed,  first,  upon  the  apostles 
themselves,  and  then,  through  them,  upon  the  minds  of  Christian 
converts.  And  it  may  remain  for  us  to  learn  what  those  instruc- 
tions of  Christ  and  the  apostles  were,  from  what  we  discover  to 
have  been  the  practice  of  the  first  churches.  We  should  unques- 
tionably reason  so  now,  in  a  similar  case.  Suppose,  without  any 
previous  knowledge  of  the  subject,  we  should  visit  a  place  in 
Africa,  where  a  Christian  missionary  had  successfully  preached, 
and  founded  a  church,  he  having  been  the  only  minister  of  the 

29* 


342  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

gospel  who  had  labored  in  that  place.  And  suppose  our  visit  to 
take  place  some  time  after  his  death.  Would  not  the  prevailing 
usages  of  that  church  show,  to  our  perfect  satisfaction,  what 
instructions  he  gave  ?  If  we  should  find  it  the  practice  of  that 
church  to  baptize  only  adult  believers,  and  to  do  it  by  immersion  ; 
ehould  we  not  conclude  at  once,  that  the  minister  who  taught 
them  was  a  Baptist?  But  if  we  should  find  that  the  church, 
thus  founded  by  his  faithful  labors,  and  guided  by  his  wisdom, 
was  in  the  practice  of  baptizing  their  infant  children,  and  that  this 
had  been  their  uniform  practice  from  the  beginning ;  should  we 
not  conclude  that  he  taught  them  to  baptize  their  children  ? 
Most  certainly  men  in  general,  of  whatever  denomination,  would 
judge  in  this  manner,  and  would  be  satisfied  what  the  instructions 
of  any  distinguished  missionary  were,  from  the  prevaiUng  usages 
of  a  church  founded  by  his  influence.  And  such  would  be  the 
conclusion  we  should  form,  for  a  long  time  after  his  decease, 
unless  the  influence  of  subsequent  teachers  of  different  views,  or 
some  other  visible  causes,  had  operated  to  produce  a  change. 
Indeed  it  is  clear,  that  the  form  and  usages  of  a  church  in  any 
place  must  be  derived  from  the  principal  teacher,  and  conformed 
to  his  views.  And  if  those  Christians  who  deny  Infant  Baptism, 
could,  among  the  treasures  of  antiquity,  discover  a  history  bear- 
ino-  every  mark  of  authenticity,  and  containing  a  particular 
accovmt  of  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor  immediately  after  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  and  if  that  history  should  plainly  affirm  that  those 
churches  never  baptized  children,  and  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ers, on  coming  to  adult  years  and  professing  their  faith  in  Christ, 
were  then  baptized ;  I  say,  if  those  who  deny  Infant  Baptism  could 
find  from  authentic  records,  that  such  was  the  usage  of  those 
churches ;  they  would  think  this  to  be  a  very  valuable  discovery, 
and  the  uniform  practice  of  those  churches  to  baptize  adult  believ- 
ers, and  those  only,  to  be  a  valid  proof  that  they  were  so  taught 
by  the  apostles. 

But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  argue  the  point  from  the  inspired 
records,  just  as  they  are.  My  position  is,  that  the  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament,  understood  according  to  just  rules  of  inter- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  843 

pr elation,  clearly  show  that  the  children  of  believers  are  to  he 
haptized. 

The  rule  of  interpretation,  which  is  of  the  highest  consequence, 
and  which  will  aid  us  most  in  discovering  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures  in  relation  to  every  subject,  particularly  the 
one  now  before  us,  is,  that  we  put  ourselves,  as  far  as  may 
he,  in  the  place  of  those  who  gave  instruction,  and  of  those  who 
received  it. 

You  will  easily  perceive  the  importance  and  necessity  of  this 
rule.  For  in  numberless  instances,  a  declaration  or  direction 
derives  its  peculiar  meaning  from  the  consideration  of  the  person 
who  speaks,  or  of  those  to  whom  he  speaks.  Who  does  not  know 
that  the  same  combination  of  words  has  a  very  different  meaning 
in  one  place  from  what  it  has  in  another  ?  Even  when  the  gene- 
ral sense  of  the  words  is  the  same,  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
must  determine  the  extent  of  meaning  which  they  bear,  or  what  is 
implied  in  the  application  of  them  to  the  subject  in  hand.  Some 
fact,  some  prevalent  custom,  or  habit  of  thinking,  may  give  them 
a  specific  signification  ;  and  without  taking  such  fact  or  custom 
into  view,  we  may  miss  the  exact  sense  and  import  of  the  words. 
In  how  many  instances  should  we  be  at  a  loss  respecting 
the  meaning  of  historians,  poets,  and  orators,  without  taking  into 
account  the  age  and  place  in  which  they  lived,  and  the  character, 
laws,  and  usages,  of  the  people  with  whom  they  were  conversant, 
and  for  whom  they  wrote. 

As  a  single  illustration  of  the  importance  of  this  principle ; 
look  at  a  text  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  is  mentioned  ;  for  example,  Is.  56:  2,  "  Blessed  is 
the  man  that  keepeth  the  Sabbath  from  polluting  it."  How  do 
you  ascertain  which  day  is  meant  ?  Simply  by  considering  what 
previous  instructions  and  commands  had  been  given  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  what  their  usage  was.  In  this  way  you  are  satisfied 
that  the  seventh  day  was  meant.  Look  now  at  a  law,  in  an  Eng- 
lish or  American  statute  book,  requiring  the  people  to  abstain 
from  secular  business  on  the  Sabbath.  How  do  you  ascertain 
"which  day  is  meant  here  ?     By  considering  what  has  been  the 


844  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

usage  of  Christians  generally,  and  particularly  of  that  people  for 
■whom  the  law  was  made.  In  this  way  you  are  satisfied  that  the 
first  day  of  the  week  must  be  meant. 

Come  now  to  the  subject.  Christ  appointed  baptism  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  all  who  should  become  proselytes  to  his  religion,  that  is, 
to  all  Christians  ;  and  when  he  was  about  leaving  his  apostles, 
who  were  to  be  employed  as  the  instruments  of  converting  the 
world,  he  gave  them  this  commission  ;  "  Go  ye,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  word  fia&tjrevaaze,  rendered 
teaeh^  properly  signifies,  make  disciples  ;  proselyte  ;  convert  to  the 
Christian  religion.  The  commission  then  is  this  ;  ^^  Cio  ye,  prose- 
lyte^ or  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'*  This 
command  was  given  by  one  who  was  born  a  Jew,  who  was  edu- 
cated among  the  Jews,  and  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  all 
their  institutions  and  laws,  with  their  customs  and  usages,  and 
with  the  dispensations  of  divine  providence  towards  them.  And 
the  command  was  addressed  to  Jetvs.  Now  whatever  there 
was  in  this  general  circumstance,  which  could  have  an  influence 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  command,  or  which  would  naturally 
cause  it  to  be  understood  in  one  way  or  another,  is  worthy  of  spe- 
cial attention. 

Consider,  then,  that  the  Jews  had  long  been  accustomed  to 
make  proselytes  from  paganism  to  their  religion.  The  obligation 
to  do  this  had  been  brought  to  view  in  the  divine  law,  and  rules 
had  been  given  for  the  proper  treatment  of  proselytes.  To  make 
proselytes  was  regarded  as  a  great  object ;  and  the  eflbrts  of  the 
Jews  to  bring  others  to  embrace  their  religion  were  crowned  with 
extensive  success.  Proselytes  were  numerous  both  in  Greece 
and  in  Rome ;  and  it  seems  that,  after  the  persecutmg  reign  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  some  whole  nations,  as  the  Idumeans, 
Itureans,  and  Moabites,  professed  the  Jewish  faith.  And  when- 
ever gentiles  embraced  the  Jewish  religion,  they  were  treated  in 
regard  to  circumcision,  according  to  the  Jewish  law ;  that  is,  they 
were  circumcised, — parents  and  children.     This  was  the  law  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  345 

the  Jews  ;  and  this  was  the  uniform  practice.  Hence  it  must  be 
easy  to  determine  how  Christian  Jews  would  be  hkelj  to  under- 
stand the  duty  of  proselyting  idolaters  and  unbelievers  to  the  true 
religion.  Suppose  that  God,  previously  to  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, had  selected  twelve  Jews,  and  sent  them  forth  to  convert 
Greeks  and  Romans  to  their  religion,  and  without  any  mention  of 
children,  had  merely  given  them  this  commission  :  Go  ye,  proselyte 
and  circumcise  them.  Would  they  not  have  understood  such  a 
commission  as  requiring  them  to  circumcise  the  children  of  con- 
verted Greeks  and  Romans  ?  Unquestionably  they  would.  And 
"why  ?  Not  because  they  were  children  ;  but  because  they  were 
Jews,  and  had  always  been  accustomed  to  the  circumcision  of 
children,  as  ivell  as  parents.  In  obedience  to  this  divine  com- 
mand, they  would  have  gone  to  the  people  specified,  and  in  all  the 
instances  in  which  men  were  made  proselytes,  would  have  circum- 
cised them  and  their  children. 

Again.  Suppose,  in  such  a  case,  a  command  had  been  given, 
"which  included  baptism  with  circumcision  ;  thus :  Go  ye,  and 
proselyte  those  nations,  circumcising  and  baptizing  them.  Still 
not  a  word  about  children;  but  simply,  Go  and  proselyte  those 
nations  to  Judaism,  circumcising  and  baptizing  them.  Most  cer- 
tainly they  would  have  understood  that  baptism,  as  well  as  circum- 
cision, was  to  be  applied  to  proselytes  and  their  children. 

But  suppose  that  baptism  had  been  put  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, as  the  sign  to  be  put  upon  proselytes  to  Judaism  ;  and  sa 
the  command  to  those  Jewish  teachers  had  been  ;  Go  ye,  prose- 
lyte and  baptize  the  people  of  Greece  arid  Home.  Must  they  not 
have  understood  the  command  in  the  same  way  ?  Surely  those 
who  were  acquainted  with  the  commands  and  institutions  which 
God  gave  to  Abraham  and  to  Moses,  and  who  had  always  been 
accustomed  to  observe  them,  could  have  had  no  doubt,  that  the 
rite  which  marked  the  relation  of  proselytes  to  God,  was  to  be 
applied  to  their  children  also. 

Thus  far,  all  must  have  the  same  opinion.  Such  a  divine  com- 
mand to  Jews  before  the  time  of  Christ,  whether  it  appointed  cir- 
cumcision only,  or  circumcision  together  with  baptism,  or  baptism 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 

instead  of  circumcision,  as  a  mark  to  be  applied  to  those  who 
were  proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion,  must  have  been  under- 
stood as  intended  to  be  applied  also  to  the  cldldren  of  proselytes, 
though  no  mention  was  made  of  children  in  the  command. 

I  am  now  only  availing  myself  of  one  of  the  most  important 
principles  of  interpretation,  and  attempting  to  show  what  influence 
must  have  been  produced  upon  the  meaning  of  Christ's  direction 
by  the  circumstance,  that  he  was  a  Jew,  and  that  he  gave  the 
direction  to  Jews,  whose  laws  and  usages  had  been  what  the  Scrip- 
tures represent. 

But  to  illustrate  this  principle  still  further  ;  suppose  it  to  have 
been  the  appointment  of  our  Saviour,  after  his  public  ministry 
began,  that  circumcision  should  be  applied  to  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity, as  it  had  been  to  converts  to  Judaism  ;  and  suppose  him 
to  have  said  to  his  apostles ;  "  Go  ye,  proselyte  all  nations,  and 
circumcise  them,"  — making  no  mention  of  children.  Could  the 
apostles  have  doubted  a  moment,  whether  circumcision  was  meant 
to  be  applied  to  the  cldldren  of  proselytes  ?  But  why  should  we 
suppose  they  would  put  a  different  construction  upon  the  commis- 
sion they  received  from  Christ,  because  baptism  was  made  the  sign 
of  proselytes,  instead  of  circumcision  ?  There  is  evidently  nothing 
in  the  import  of  the  sign,  which  would  require  any  difference  in  its 
application.  For  baptism  is  appointed  simply  as  a  sign,  to  be  put 
upon  those  who  are  proselyted  to  Christianity.  If  circumcision  had 
been  continued,  and  Christ  had  commanded  it  to  be  put  upon  Chns- 
tian  proselytes,  as  it  had  been  upon  proselytes  to  the  religion  of 
Moses,  the  meaning  and  use  of  it  would  have  been  perfectly  the 
same,  as  the  meaning  and  use  of  baptism. 

But  there  is  another  consideration,  which  may  help  to  show  us 
still  further,  how  the  apostles  must  have  understood  their  commis- 
sion to  baptize  converts  to  Christianity  ;  namely,  the  previous 
practice  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  proselytes  and  their  children. 

The  evidence  of  such  a  practice  among  the  Jews  has  been  very 
satisfactory  to  most  men  of  distinguished  learning  and  judgment. 
Knapp,  in  his  Theology,  gives  the  following  brief  view  of  the 
arguments  in  proof  of  proselyte  baptism ;  namely ;  "  The  unani- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  347 

mous  testimony  of  all  the  Rabbins  ;  ■  the  universality  of  this  prac- 
tice among  the  Jews  of  the  second  century ;  the  striking  similarity 
of  the  Jewish  expressions  concerning  the  baptism  of  proselytes,  to 
those  which  occur  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  Christian 
rite  ;  and  the  circumstance  that  Josephus,  in  his  account  of  John 
the  Baptist,  does  not  express  the  least  surprise  at  the  practice  of 
baptism,  as  a  new  and  unwonted  ceremony."  Knapp  suggests 
also,  what  I  think  to  be  deserving  of  special  consideration,  that  if 
the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  customary  among  the  Jews  at  or 
before  the  time  of  Chz'ist,  many  things  could  be  explained  more 
clearly  from  this  circumstance,  than  in  any  other  way. 

Some  have  doubted  whether  the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  in 
use  before  the  Christian  era,  because  the  earliest  of  the  Jewish 
writers  who  mention  the  practice,  lived  some  time  after  Christ. 

In  regard  to  this  subject,  let  the  following  tilings  be  consi- 
dered. 

1.  The  Rabbins  unanimously  assert  that  the  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes had  been  practised  by  the  Jews  in  all  ages,  from  Moses 
down  to  the  time  when  they  wrote.  Now  these  writers  must  have 
been  sensible  that  their  contemporaries,  both  Jews  and  Christians, 
knew  whether  such  a  practice  had  been  prevalent  or  not.  And 
had  it  been  known  that  no  such  practice  had  existed  ;  would  not 
some  Jews  have  been  found,  bold  enough  to  contradict  such  a 
groundless  assertion  of  the  Rabbins  ?  At  least,  would  there  not 
have  been  some  Jewish  Christians,  fired  with  the  love  of  truth, 
and  jealous  for  the  honor  of  a  sacred  rite  first  instituted  by  Christ, 
who  would  have  exposed  to  shame  those  who  falsely  asserted  that 
a  similar  rite  had  existed  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  ?  But 
neither  of  these  things  was  done. 

2.  Had  not  the  Jews  been  accustomed  to  baptize  proselytes 
previously  to  the  Christian  era,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
they  would  have  adopted  the  practice  afterwards.  For  their  con- 
tempt and  hatred  of  Christianity  exceeded  all  bounds,  and  must 
have  kept  them  at  the  greatest  possible  distance  from  copying  a 
rite  pecuUar  to  Christians. 

3.  It  seems  to  have  been  perfectly  consistent  and  proper  for 


348  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  Jews  to  baptize  proselytes.  For  their  divine  ritual  enjoined 
various  purifications  by  washing,  or  baptism.  And  as  they  consi- 
dered all  gentiles  to  be  unclean^  how  could  they  do  otherwise 
than  understand  the  divine  law  to  require,  that  when  any  of 
them  were  proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion,  they  should  receive 
the  same  sign  of  purification,  as  was,  in  so  many  cases,  applied  to 
themselves  ?  * 

I  will  only  add,  that  the  more  carefully  I  have  considered  the 
arguments  which  prove  proselyte  baptism,  and  the  objections 
urged  against  it,  the  stronger  has  been  my  conviction  that  it  was 
practised. 

If  then  it  had  been  the  uniform  custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize 
proselytes  to  their  religion,  as  we  have  so  much  reason  to  think  ;  it 
is  clear  that  the  baptism  of  proselytes  by  John  and  by  Christ  was 
no  new  thing.  It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  baptism,  as  a  religious 
rite,  had  been  familiarly  known  among  the  Jews  from  the  time  of 
Moses.  So  that  the  rite  Avhich  John  the  Baptist  instituted  was 
not  by  any  means  a  new  rite.  The  question  put  to  him  (John 
1:  25)  implies,  that  baptism  was  not  regarded  by  the  Jews  at 
that  time  as  a  new  rite.  —  It  was  this  rite,  long  used  for  ceremo- 
nial purification,  and  also  in  the  case  of  proselytes  to  the  Jewish 
religion,  which  John  applied  to  those  Jews  Avho  hstened  to  his 
instructions,  and  gave  signs  of  repentance.  Afterwards  Christ 
ordained,  that  this  same  rite,  which  had  thus  been  used  among 
the  Israelites  for  purification,  and  thus  applied  to  converted  gen- 
tiles and  to  Jews  who  repented  under  the  preaching  of  John, 
should  from  that  time  be  applied  to  all  in  every  part  of  the  world, 
who  embraced  Christianity.  The  work  of  proselyting  men  to  the 
true  religion  had  before  been  carried  on  within  narrow  limits.  It 
was  now  to  be  carried  on  extensively  ;  and  baptism,  in  the  Chris- 
tian form,  was  now  to  be  administered  to  all  proselytes.     "  Go  ye, 

*  I  beg  leave  to  refer  those  who  wish  to  examine  the  subject  more  particularly, 
to  Lightfoot's  Hor.  Heb.  on  Matt.  iii.  and  John  iii.  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, Introiluction.  Gale's  Reflections  on  Wall's  History:  Michaelis  Dogm.  § 
180.  Ernesti  Vindiciae  arbit.  div.  §  49.  Jahn's  Archaeology.  Wetstein  on  Matt. 
3:  6.  Gill's  Body  of  Divinity.  R.  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  and  other 
works  on  the  same  subject. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  349 

and  prosel  vte  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  judging  of  the  true 
meaning  and  intent  of  this  commission,  the  apostles  would  natu- 
rally consider  in  what  manner  baptism  had  been  administered ; 
and  particularly,  its  having  been  applied  to  proselytes  and  their 
children.  This  last  circumstance,  in  addition  to  the  other  with  which 
they  were  so  familiar,  that  of  having  children  as  well  as  parents 
consecrated  to  God  by  circumcision,  must  have  had  a  direct  and  de- 
cisive influence  upon  the  construction  which  the  apostles  put  upon 
their  commission,  and  must  have  led  them  to  conclude,  that  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  children  as  well  as  parents  were  to  be 
devoted  to  God  by  baptism,  unless  some  contrary  instruction  was 
given  to  prevent  such  a  conclusion.  Knapp  says  ;  "  If  Christ  in 
his  command  to  baptize  all,  Matt,  xxviii,  had  wished  children  to  be 
excepted  ;  he  must  have  expressly  said  this.  For  since  the  first 
disciples  of  Christ,  as  native  Jcavs,  knew  no  other  way  than  for 
children  to  be  introduced  into  the  Israelitish  church  by  circum- 
cision ;  it  was  natural  that  they  should  extend  this  to  baptism,  if 
Christ  did  not  expressly  forbid  it.  Had  he  therefore  wished 
that  it  should  not  be  done,  he  would  surely  have  said  so  in  definite 
terms." 

Another  consideration  which  shows,  that  it  must  have  been  per- 
fectly consistent  for  the  apostles  to  understand  their  commission 
in  the  manner  above  stated,  is,  that  the  Scriptures  so  often  rep- 
resent parents  and  cliildren  as  receiving  the  same  treatment  from 
divine  providence,  and  as  being  closely  connected  together  in  re- 
spect to  their  most  important  interests.  "  I  will  be  your  God, 
and  the  God  of  your  seed."  —  "  Visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fa- 
thers upon  the  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of 
them  that  hate  me,  and  showing  mercy  unto  thousands,"  —  that 
is,  thousands  of  generations,  "  of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my 
commandments."  "  That  he  may  prolong  his  days,  he  and  his 
children."  ''  Keep  my  commandments,  that  it  may  be  well  with 
thee  and  with  thy  children  after  thee."  "  They  are  the  seed  of 
the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with  them."  With 
Buch  representations  as  these  the  course  of  divine  providence  had 

VOL.  III.  30 


350  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

a  striking  correspondence.  It  was  a  general  fact  that,  whether 
mercies  or  judgments  came  upon  men,  their  children  were  par- 
takers of  the  same.  And  this  principle  of  the  divine  administration 
had  a  special  reference  to  the  interests  of  rehgion.  Now  the 
apostles  were  perfectly  acquainted  with  this  principle.  They  had 
the  highest  reverence  for  those  sacred  writings,  which  exhibited 
such  views  of  the  connection  between  parents  and  children ;  and 
they  had  been  brought  up  under  a  divine  economy,  which  afforded 
continual  confirmation  of  what  their  Scriptures  taught  in  regard  to 
this  connection.  What  violence  then  must  they  have  done  to  all 
those  habits  of  thinking  and  feeling,  which  they  had  derived  from 
the  word  and  providence  of  God,  had  they  supposed,  that  parents 
and  children  were  no  longer  to  be  connected  together  in  the  con- 
cerns of  religion,  or  in  public  and  sacred  transactions,  or  that  the 
consecration  of  parents  and  children  to  God  was  no  longer  to  be 
marked,  as  it  always  had  been,  with  the  sign  of  the  dispensation 
under  which  they  were  placed  ! 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  train  of  thought,  that  the  promises, 
above  recited,  were  conditional.  For  they  were  no  more  con- 
ditional in  regard  to  children,  than  in  regard  to  parents.  And  the 
fact  that  a  promise  or  covenant  has  proper  conditions,  is  surely  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  have  a  token  or  seal. 


LECTURE     CXIII. 


INFANT   BAPTISM. 

The  general  position,  which  I  have  endeavored  to  support  is 
this ;  that  the  apostles,  being  native  Jews,  and  having  the  impres- 
sions and  habits  of  thinking  which  pious  Jews  would  necessarily 
derive  from  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  the  usages  of  the  nation, 
with  the  rites  enjoined  in  their  sacred  writings,  and  with  the  rep- 
resentations there  made  respecting  the  divine  conduct  towards 
parents  and  children,  must  have  understood  their  commission  to 
baptize  proselytes,  as  intended  to  include  children  with  their 
parents. 

The  conclusiveness  of  the  mode  of  reasoning  which  has  been 
pursued,  rests  on  a  principle  of  interpretation,  which  is  of  the  first 
importance ;  namely  ;  that  we  should  place  ourselves,  as  far  as 
possible,  in  the  circumstances  of  those  who  wrote  the  Scriptures, 
and  of  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed,  and  in  this  way  en- 
deavor to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  what  was  written.  From 
Ecclesiastical  History  we  can  derive  a  very  conclusive  argument, 
that  the  apostles  did  in  fact  understand  the  institution  of  baptism, 
as  intended  for  believers  and  their  children.  But  why  did  they 
understand  it  in  this  manner  ?  I  answer,  that  without  the  suppo- 
sition of  any  direct  and  explicit  instruction  on  the  subject  from 
Christ,  there  were  reasons,  in  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
apostles  were  placed,  sufficient  to  satisfy  them,  that  such  was  the 
design  of  the  institution.  Take  the  New  Testament  just  as  it  is, 
and  consider  what  instruction  Christ  gave  his  apostles  in  regard  to 


352  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

baptism,  particularly  his  final  commission  to  them,  to  go  and  proselyte 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  proper  inquiry  is  not  how 
Greeks  and  Romans  would  have  understood  such  a  commission ; 
for  the  apostles  were  neither  Greeks  nor  Romans,  and  their  Lord 
who  commissioned  them,  was  neither  a  Greek  nor  a  Roman.  Our 
inquiry  is,  how  such  a  commission  would  naturally  be  understood 
by  those  who  were,  both  by  birth  and  education,  Jeivs ;  how  it 
would  be  understood  by  those,  who  had  derived  their  opinions 
from  the  Jewish  Scriptures  and  Jewish  usages,  and  who  were  the 
willing  servants  of  one  who  was  himself  a  Jew,  and  the  King  of 
the  Jews  ?  To  me  it  appears  evident,  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  taken  together,  must  have  had  a  decisive  influence  in 
favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  For  it  was  a  well  known  fact, 
that  the  seal  of  God's  gracious  covenant  had,  from  Abraham  to 
that  time,  been  applied  to  children.  And  this  application  of  it 
was  manifestly  grounded  on  a  permanent,  unchangeable  principle, 
that  is,  the  natural  relation  between  parents  and  children,  and  the 
propriety  and  duty  of  both  being  consecrated  to  God.  The  seal 
which  was  appointed  to  be  put  upon  God's  people  under  the  reign 
of  Christ,  was  of  the  same  general  import  with  the  one  previously 
used.  In  this  view,  therefore,  there  was  the  same  apparent  rea- 
son for  applying  it  to  the  children  of  God's  people  then,  as  before. 
As  to  its/orm,  the  seal  was  changed ;  but  as  to  its  import,  it  was 
the  same.  The  relation  of  good  men  to  God,  which  was  marked 
by  this  sign,  was  the  same  ;  and  the  relation  of  their  children  to 
them  was  the  same.  How  then  could  the  apostles  doubt  that  chil- 
dren were  still  to  receive  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  as  they  had  for- 
merly ?  With  their  impressions  and  their  usages  ;  with  their  sacred 
regard  to  the  principles  established  by  the  Scriptures  and  by  the 
divine  administration ;  particularly,  with  their  habit  of  looking 
upon  children  as  being,  by  God's  appointment,  closely  united 
to  their  parents  in  respect  to  privileges  and  prospects  ;  they  must, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  have  understood  the  command  of  Christ  to  bap- 
tize Christian  proselytes,  as  extending  to  their  children  also.  Had 
the  promise  of  God,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed,'^  or 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  B53 

had  the  circumcision  of  the  children  of  God's  people  in  connection 
with  that  promise,  rested  on  any  principle  which  appertained  to  the 
Patriarchal  or  Jewish  dispensation  in  distinction  from  the  Chris- 
tian ;  the  apostles,  placed  at  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  and  instructed  as  they  were  in  regard  to  its  nature, 
would  have  been  satisfied  of  course,  that  children  were  no  longer 
to  be  marked  with  the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  or  to  be  consecrated 
to  him  by  any  religious  rite.  But  children's  being  comprehended 
with  their  parents  in  God's  covenant,  and  their  receiving  the  same 
mark  of  his  covenant  mercy  and  of  consecration  to  him  with  their 
parents,  all  rested  upon  principles,  which  were  universal  and  im- 
mutable,  and  which  were  to  have  as  much  prominence  and  influ- 
ence under  the  reign  of  Christ,  as  before. 

We  have  seen  too,  that  the  reasoning  in  this  case  is  analogous 
to  the  reasoning  commonly  relied  upon  in  relation  to  the  Sabbath. 
The  reason  of  a  Sabbath  day  lies  in  the  nature  of  man,  and  in  his 
relation  to  God,  and  so  is  immutable.  Consequently,  the  fourth 
command,  however  changed  as  to  form,  or  circumstances,  must 
continue  as  to  substance.  There  must  be  a  sacred  day.  Its  be- 
coming a  Christian  institution,  and  its  being  observed  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  alters  not  the  substance 
of  the  fourth  command,  nor  the  obligation  of  Christians  to  obey  it. 
In  the  same  manner,  the  reason  for  Infant-consecration  lies  in  the 
nature  and  importance  of  the  relation  existing  between  children 
and  their  parents,  and  the  relation  of  both  to  God,  and  so  must 
be  the  same  in  all  ages.  This  relation  is  as  obvious  and  important, 
and  as  worthy  of  being  marked  by  a  religious  rite  now,  as  for- 
merly. The  sign  of  consecration  now  is  baptism ;  and  all  the 
reasons  in  the  case  conspire  to  favor  the  application  of  it  to  chil- 
dren. Thus  we  apprehend  the  subject  must  have  presented  itself 
to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  and  first  Christians. 

The  view  which  we  have  adopted  on  this  subject  agrees  best 
with  the  common  method  of  understanding  a  charter,  securing  to 
any  society  of  men  the  enjoyment  of  privileges.  Such  a  charter 
is,  by  common  consent,  to  be  understood  in  the  largest  sense  it 
^1  bear.     Suppose  the  grant  of  privileges  to  a  society  is  made  in 

30* 


354  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

general  terms  ;  that  is,  neither  the  individuals  nor  classes  of  men 
belonging  to  the  society  are  specified.  Now  he,  who  is  entrusted 
with  the  execution  of  the  charter,  is  bound  to  bestow  the  privileges 
granted,  on  all  who  can  fairly  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
society.  And  if  any  one  should  object  to  bestowing  the  chartered 
privileges  on  any  individuals  fairly  comprehended  within  the 
society,  it  would  be  incumbent  on  him  to  show  that  those  individu- 
als were  expressly  excepted  in  the  terms  of  the  grant.  Especially 
would  it  be  proper  to  give  this  wide  construction  to  the  grant,  if  it 
were  well  known,  that  a  previous  grant,  of  the  same  nature,  had 
expressly  required  this  extensive  application  of  its  privileges.  And 
it  would  be  a  stronger  reason  still  for  understanding  the  charter  in 
such  a  sense,  if  the  charter  itself  were  evidently  nothing  more, 
than  the  modification,  as  to  outward  form,  of  a  previous  charter, 
which  was  more  particular,  and  which,  in  the  most  explicit  terms, 
secured  its  privileges  to  those,  whose  title  is  now  called  in  ques- 
tion. In  such  a  case,  it  would  aid  us  much  in  determining  the 
extent  of  meaning  to  be  put  upon  the  more  general  terms  of  the 
charter  in  its  present  form,  to  inquire  how  it  was  with  the  charter 
when  first  given.  And  if,  on  examination,  it  should  be  found  that 
it  was  the  will  of  the  prince,  that  the  privileges,  originally  granted, 
should  be  thus  extensively  applied  ;  we  should  be  satisfied  at  once 
vthat  the  privileges  of  the  charter  in  its  present  form,  were  meant 
to  be  applied  to  an  equal  extent,  unless  there  was  an  express  limi- 
tation. And  we  should  feel  this  satisfaction  in  the  highest  possible 
degree,  if  it  appeared  that  the  prince  made  the  alteration  in  the 
form  of  the  original  charter,  with  the  declared  design  of  carrying 
its  privileges  to  a  larger  extent. 

Now  all  the  considerations,  which  would  lead  us  to  give  such  a  con- 
struction to  the  decree  or  charter  here  supposed,  exist  in  relation  to 
the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism.  Our  inquiry  is,  whether  the  lan- 
guage, employed  in  Christ's  commission  to  baptize,  would  naturally 
be  understood  by  his  apostles,  as  extending  to  the  children  of  be- 
lievers. In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  have  endeavored  to  make  it 
appear,  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  can  be  sup- 
posed to  have  had  an  influence  upon  the  minds  of  the  apostles, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  355 

were  in  favor  of  extending  baptism  to  children  ;  and  that,  before 
thej  could  understand  their  commission  in  any  other  manner,  they 
must  have  ceased  to  be  children  of  Abraham,  and  must  have 
erased  from  their  minds  all  the  impressions  which  had  been  made 
upon  them  by  the  word  and  providence  of  God. 

The  want  of  qualifications  in  children  is  a  subject  which  deserves 
particular  consideration.  It  is  sufficient  however  for  our  present 
purpose  to  say,  that  a  grant  of  privileges  is  often  made  to  children 
prospectively  and  conditionally.  In  such  cases,  some  mark  or  seal 
of  those  privileges  is  always  deemed  proper ;  and  as  to  the  privi- 
leges themselves,  it  is  the  common  understanding,  that  they  are 
secured  to  the  children,  and  will  actually  b(>long  to  them,  as  soon 
as  they  become  capable  of  enjoying  them  and  have  complied  with 
the  conditions  on  which  they  are  granted. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  merely  those  circumstances,  which 
would  be  likely  to  influence  the  apostles  in  their  understanding  of 
the  meaning  of  their  commission.  The  reasoning  has  proceeded 
independently  of  the  consideration  of  any  other  means  Vhich  they 
might  have  had  of  knowing  what  was  the  will  of  their  Lord. 

But  we  must  not  stop  here,  but  proceed  to  inquire,  whether 
there  was  anything  in  the  previous  instructions  of  Christ,  which 
could  have  contributed  to  satisfy  the  apostles  in  what  light  he  re- 
garded the  children  of  his  people,  and  in  what  manner  he  would 
have  them  treated  ;  or  which  could  have  had  any  influence  on  their 
minds  in  regard  to  the  subject  before  us. 

The  evidence  I  shall  adduce  is  circumstantial,  and  by  way  of 
inference.  But  such  evidence,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  often  as 
satisfactory  as  any  other. 

I  here  refer  you  to  Matt.  19:  13,  14.  "  Then  were  brought  to 
Jesus  Uttle  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them  and 
pray  ;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said.  Suffer 
little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them."  The 
game  thing  is  related  in  nearly  the  same  manner  by  Mark,  10:  13, 
14,  and  by  Luke,  18:  15,  16.  In  Luke  ^Qicpri  is  used,  which 
denotes  young  children,  infants.     The  phrase  Idngdom  of  heaven. 


356  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

or  kingdom  of  God,  unquestionably  signifies  here,  as  it  generally 
does  in  the  Evangelists,  the  Christian  cJmrcli,  or  the  kingdom  which 
Christ  set  up  in  the  world,  in  distinction  from  the  society  of  God's 
people  as  it  existed  under  the  former  dispensation. 

That  part  of  this  passage  which  relates  more  directly  to  our 
subject,  is  the  declaration  at  the  close  ;  rav  yag  toiovtcov  iailv  j/ 
§aai).eut  rav  ovQavmv ;  for  to  such  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs. 
Ihey  have  a  right  to  its  blessings. 

The  common  rendering  of  the  phrase  is,  "  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  "  —  which  is  understood  to  mean,  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  consists  or  is  made  up  of  such.  But  the  render- 
ing which  I  have  given  and  which  I  think  more  exactly  agreeable  to 
the  sense  of  the  original,  is  the  same  as  is  given  to  a  similar  phrase 
in  Matt.  5:  3,  10.  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  on  avzm 
iariv  7]  (iaaiXeia  tav  ovQavaiv,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to  them ;  they  have  a  right  to  it. 
The  same  v.  10.  "  Blessed  are  they  who  are  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  Szi  avrcav  lanv  ■^  ^aaiisia  rav  ovgavcov ;  for 
theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  "  it  belongs  to  them. 

The  whole  verse  then  will  stand  thus  ;  "  Suffer  little  children 
and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  to  such  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  belongs."  They  are  entitled  to  its  privileges.  In  what 
particular  sense  the  privileges  of  the  Christian  church  belong  to 
children  will  be  considered  in  the  sequel. 

There  are  two  ways  of  interpreting  the  declaration  above  men- 
tioned. According  to  one  of  them,  the  declaration  relates  to 
those  who  resemble  little  childreri;  that  is,  to  those  who  are  docile, 
and  free  from  ambition  and  malice.  '  Those  who  adopt  this  sense 
of  the  passage,  consider  the  declaration,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  as  signifying,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs,  not 
to  little  children  themselves,  but  to  those  who  are  like  them  —  to 
real  Christians. 

The  principal  arguments  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  are  the 
following. 

1.  It  is  said,  this  interpretation  is  suggested  by  the  passages  in 
which  Christ  professedly  undertakes  to  show  what  character  his 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  357 

disciples  must  possess,  from  the  obvious  qualities  of  a  little  child  ; 
as  in  Matt.  18:  1 — 6.  The  disciples,  influenced  by  feelings  of 
ambition,  inquired  who  was  the  greatest  in  Christ's  kingdom. 
Christ  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst,  and 
said  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  be- 
come as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  heaven.  And  whoso 
shall  recieve  one  such  little  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  But 
whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones  who  believe  in  me,  it 
were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck, 
and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  midst  of  the  sea."  Here  the 
phrase,  naidiov  toiovrov,  such  a  child,  is  used  to  signify  one  who  re- 
sembles a  child  ;  that  is,  a  disciple  of  Christ ;  as  appears  from  the 
next  verse.  When  therefore  Christ  says,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  or  to  such,  that 
is,  to  such  little  children,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  ;  he  must, 
it  is  thought,  evidently  mean  the  same,  as  in  the  place  where  he 
speaks  expressly  of  those  littla  ones  who  believe. 

2.  This  interpretation  of  the  passage,  it  is  supposed,  may  be  de- 
fended by  what  directly  follows  in  the  context,  as  Mark  and  Luke 
have  it.  iVccording  to  these  Evangelists,  after  Christ  says,  "  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,"  he  immediately 
adds:  "  Whosoever  shall  not  recieve  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
child,  shall  not  enter  therein."  This  is  evidently  intended  to  point 
out  the  character  of  his  disciples  ;  and  why  shovild  not  the  declara- 
tion, "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  be  understood  as  referring 
to  the  same  ?  Kuinoel  argues  in  favor  of  this  sense  of  the  passage, 
by  what  Christ  says  immediately  after ;  "  whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  shall  not  enter  therein." 

3.  There  is  a  general  reason  for  giving  the  passage  this' sense, 
which,  though  I  have  not  seen  it  distinctly  mentioned  by  any  author, 
seems  to  me  deserving  of  consideration.  I  refer  to  the  fact,  that 
Christ  so  often  took  pains  to  instruct  the  people  as  to  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  necessary  qualifications  of  those  who  should 
be  admitted  to  enjoy  its  blessings,  and  insisted  upon  the  preeminent 


358  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

importance  of  their  being  like  a  little  child,  or  their  being  free 
from  pride  and  maUce,  and  possessing  a  humble,  teachable  disposi- 
tion. Now  it  would  seem  that  a  declaration  of  Christ,  showing  to 
whom  his  kingdom  belongs,  would  most  naturally  be  intended  to 
refer  to  the  character  of  true  disciples. 

These,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  the  chief  reasons  which  have  been 
or  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  this  sense  of  the  passage. 

But  there  are  weight}^  considerations  against  this  interpretation, 
and  in  favor  of  that  which  makes  the  plirase,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,^''  or  to  such  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs,  relate  to 
children  themselves,  such  as  those  that  were  brought  to  Christ. 

The  first  reason  I  shall  mention  is,  that  roiovzog  properly  denotes 
the  nature  or  quahtj  of  the  thing  to  which  it  is  applied.  "  Innuit 
quaUtatem  rei."  Schleusner.  ^^  Such,  of  this  kind  ov  sort.'"  Robin- 
son's Wahl.  Accordingly,  idjv  ydg  toioizcov  hz)v  ^aatltia  zav  ovqa- 
vmv,  signifies,  to  such  children,  (naidicov  being  understood,)  to  such 
children  as  these  the  privileges  of  Christ's  king4om,  or  of  the 
gospel  dispensation  belong.  The  children  who  were  brought  to 
Christ  must  have  been  included.  For  if  those  privileges  belonged  to 
such  children  as  they  were,  why  not  to  them  ?  This  sense  of  the 
word  may  be  illustrated  from  its  current  use  in  similar  circum- 
stances in  the  New  Testament.  Matt.  9:  8.  "  The  multitude  glori- 
fied God,  who  had  given  such  power  to  men  ;^'  i^ovacuv  zoiavrijv, 
poiver  of  such  a  kind,  or  so  glorious,  —  the  very  power  which  had 
just  been  displayed  being  intended.  Mark  4:  33.  "  With  many 
such  parables  spake  he  unto  them  ;  "  totavzaig  nuQa^oXalgy  with 
many  parables  such  as  these.  Mark  6:  2,  —  "  that  such  mighty 
works  are  wrought  by  his  hands  ;  "  Svpdfisig  toiavtai.  Luke  9:  9. 
"  Who  is  this  of  whom  I  hear  such  things  ;  ^^zoiavza,  things  of  such 
a  nature  as  these.  Luke  13:  2.  "  Suppose  ye  that  these  Galileans 
were  sinners  above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they  suffered  such 
things  f  roiovza,  things  of  so  dreadful  a  nature  as  those  mentioned. 
John  9:  16.  "  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such  miracles?'* 
TOiavza  orifiHa,  miracles  of  so  remarkable  a  nature  as  those  referred 
to.  So  in  several  passages  in  Romans,  toiavta  signifies  such  things 
as  those  before  mentioned.  This  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  roiovrog, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  359 

except  when  it  is  employed  in  a  peculiar,  unusual  manner.  Ac- 
cordingly the  phrase,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  must 
mean,  of  such  children  as  these,  the  very  children  that  were  brought 
to  Christ  being  included.  The  other  sense  of  rcov  roiovzbn>,  name- 
ly, —  of  those  zvho  are  like  these  children,  that  is,  of  those  who  are 
not  real  children,  hut  docile,  humble  men,  would  be  altogether  an 
exception  from  the  prevailing  sense,  and  ought  not  to  be  adopted, 
"without  imperious  reasons. 

To  satisfy  ourselves  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  meaning  above 
given  to  the  passage,  let  us  suppose  a  variation  in  the  predicate, 
"while  the  subject,  which  is  signified  by  roiovzcav,  remains  the  same. 
Thus :  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  —  for  to  such  God 
has  given  immortal  souls  ;  or,  I  came  to  save  such  ;  or,  such  are  the 
objects  of  my  kindness,  and  are  to  be  trained  up  for  me.  Here 
it  would  be  evident  to  all,  that  what  was  said  was  to  be  understood, 
not  of  those  who  had  a  temper  resembling  that  of  children,  but  of 
children  themselves.  And  it  must  be  so  in  the  case  under  con- 
sideration, unless  we  are  to  assume,  that  what  is  denoted  by  the 
hingdom  of  heaven,  cannot  in  any  sense  belong  to  children.  But 
"who  will  venture  on  such  an  assumption  ? 

I  allow  that  naidiov  roioviov,  in  Matt.  18:  5,  may  at  first  view 
appear  to  favor  the  other  interpretation.  But  a  careful  attention 
to  all  the  circumstances  will  lead,  I  think,  to  a  different  conclusion. 
"  Jesus  set  a  child  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  and  said,  except 
ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Thus  he  directed  the  attention  of 
those  around  him  to  the  character  of  a  true  disciple.  He  repre- 
sented a  disciple,  a  member  of  his  kingdom,  to  be  hke  a  little  child, 
or  to  be  a  child  in  disposition.  So  that  when,  in  the  next  verse, 
he  says,  "whosoever  shall  recieve  one  such  child,  "  the  way  was 
prepared  for  understanding  him  to  mean  a  person  of  a  loivly  dis- 
position^ a  true  disciple.  A  person  of  this  character  had  been 
made  the  subject  of  discourse, —  the  subject  on  which  the  thoughts 
of  all  were  fixed.  In  these  circumstances,  naiSlov  to'oDtov  must  of 
course  have  been  taken  to  mean  a  person  of  a  childlike  disposition. 
And  we  fijid  in  verse  6,  epa  tmv  [zixqmp,  one  of  these  little  ones,  is 


360  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

expressly  made  to  signify  one  who  believes  in  Christ.  He  was  speak- 
ing of  such  a  one  under  the  image  of  a  child.  And  so  he  calls 
him  a  child. 

There  is  then  an  obvious  difference  between  the  two  passages. 
In  one,  the  attention  is  fixed  upon  the  character  of  a  Christian,  as 
the  principal  subject.  In  consequence  of  the  method  which  was 
taken  to  illustrate  his  character,  it  became  perfectly  natural  to  call 
him  a  child,  a  little  child.  Iluid'iov  toiovtov,  thus  introduced,  must 
have  been  understood  to  signify  a  disciple  of  Christ.  But,  in  the 
other  passage,  the  subject  presented  before  the  mind  was,  the  little 
children  themselves.  They  were  brought  to  Christ  for  his  blessing. 
Upon  them  the  attention  of  all  was  fixed.  To  them  the  objection 
of  the  disciples  related.  And  surely  what  Christ  said  in  the  way 
of  reply  to  that  objection,  must  also  have  related  to  them.  We 
rest  then  on  a  general  principle  ;  namely  ;  that  words  are  to  be 
taken  in  their  literal  sense,  unless  there  is  a  plain  and  satisfactory 
reason  for  taking  them  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  In  Matt.  18:  5, 
there  is  such  a  reason.     In  Matt.  19:  14,  there  is  not. 

My  second  reason  in  favor  of  the  interpretation  we  are  now  consid- 
ering is,  that  the  declaration,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  is 
expressly  made  the  reason,  for  suffering  little  children  themselves 
to  come  to  him.  "  Suffer  little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me,  toov  yag  roiovzwv,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  classic  authors,  yuQ  is  com- 
monly used  to  denote  the  reason  of  what  has  been  asserted  or 
implied.  The  declaration,  "/or  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  the  words,  must  then  be  un- 
derstood to  be  the  reason  for  suffering  the  little  children  themselves 
to  come  to  him.  But  how  could  this  be  a  reason  for  suffering  the 
little  children  to  come  to  Christ,  if  they  did  not  belong  to  his  king- 
dom, but  only  certain  others  who  resembled  them  ?  When,  however, 
I  say  that  their  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  given  as 
the  reason  why  they  should  be  suffered  to  come  to  Christ,  I  do  not 
rely  merely  on  the  causative  conjunction,  yaQ  ;  which,  though  it  is 
commonly  used  in  this  sense,  is  sometimes  used  in  a  different  sense. 
For  even  if  this  conjunction  were  omitted,  the  very  collocation  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  361 

the  words,  and  the  obvious  relation  of  the  ideas  contained  in  the 
former  and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  would  clearlj  suggest, 
that  the  fact  last  mentioned  was  meant  to  be  given  as  the  reason  of 
what  was  before  said.  The  disciples  forbid  little  children  to  come 
to  Christ.  He  rebukes  them,  and  says,  —  Suffer  the  little  children 
to  come  unto  me  ;  of  such  is  the  Idngdom  of  heaven.  Now  who 
could  tell  tvhy  this  last  should  be  said,  if  not  meant  to  be  a  reason 
for  suffering  the  little  children  to  come  ?  And  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  little  children  did  come,  and  that  they  came  too  in 
consequence  of  that  very  direction  which  Christ  gave  respecting 
them,  and  which  was  accompanied  with  such  a  reason. 

These  two  considerations ;  namely ;  the  prevailing  use  of  the 
word  toiovTmv,  and  the  assigning  of  the  last  circumstance  men- 
tioned in  the  sentence,  as  the  reason  of  the  direction  just  before 
given,  are  of  great  weight,  being  the  prominent  considerations 
both  of  a  philological  and  logical  nature,  which  relate  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  text.  And  if  the  last  interpretation  given  is  not 
the  right  one  ;  then  the  word  toiovtav  is  not  here  used  in  its  com- 
mon sense,  and  the  reason  assigned  by  Christ  for  suffering  the 
little  children  to  come  to  him,  seems  to  have  no  weight  or  per- 
tinence. 

Now  considering  that  this  interpretation  of  the  text  is  supported 
by  such  considerations,  Ave  certainly  ought  not  to  reject  it,  and 
to  adopt  another,  without  very  strong  and  conclusive  reasons. 
But  do  such  reasons  exist  ? 

Let  us  then  inquire,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  which  is  conclusive  against  this  interpretation.  Is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  Christian  church  such,  as  would  make 
it  inconsistent  to  suppose  that  it  belongs,  in  any  sense,  to  chil- 
dren ?  I  answer  in  the  negative  ;  and  the  propriety  of  this  an- 
swer may  be  made  to  appear  in  two  ways. 

First ;  Christ's  kingdom  may  belong  to  little  children,  or  they 
may  be  members  of  it,  in  the  highest  sense.  They  may  have 
been  designated  as  heirs  of  salvation,  and  the  grace  of  God  may 
have  sealed  them  for  heaven.  No  one  can  show  that  the  actual 
salvation  of  Uttle  children  is  impossihle,  or  improbable. 

VOL.  III.  31 


362  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

But  secondly ;  without  supposing  that  all  children,  or  even  all 
the  children  of  believers,  are  actually  members  of  Christ's  king- 
dom in  the  highest  sense  ;  we  may  consider  them  as  being  related 
to  it,  and  entitled  to  its  privileges,  in  a  lower,  though  a  very  im- 
portant sense.  We  may  consider  them  as  sustaining  a  very  near 
relation  to  their  own  parents,  and  through  them  to  the  church. 
They  may  have  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  church,  somewhat 
as  children  may  have  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  a  particular  civil 
community,  of  which  their  parents  are  members.  The  children  of 
pious  parents  may  have  such  a  connection  with  the  church,  as  will 
secure  to  them  special  advantages  for  moral  improvement,  and  a 
prospect  specially  favorable  to  their  final  salvation.  It  may  be 
the  design  of  God,  that  the  Christian  religion  should  be  transmitted 
from  one  generation  to  another,  and  perpetuated  in  the  world, 
generally,  by  the  pious  education  of  those  who  are  the  children  of 
the  church,  rendered  successful  by  the  divine  blessing. 

Now  this  relation  of  children  to  the  church,  which  I  consider  to 
be  a  matter  of  fact,  is  of  vast  importance  to  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion ;  and  resulting,  as  it  does,  from  the  constitution  of  human 
beings,  and  the  appointment  of  God  respecting  his  kingdom,  it  is 
deserving  of  special  notice.  Such  notice  Christ  seems  to  have 
given  it  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  According  to  the 
views  which  have  now  been  suggested,  this  passage  may  be  par- 
aphrased thus  :  —  These  little  children,  whom  you  Avould  hinder 
from  being  brought  to  me  for  my  blessing,  are  objects  of  my 
kindest  regard.  They,  and  such  as  they,  stand  in  a  near  relation 
to  my  church.  The  kingdom,  which  I  am  setting  up,  is  not  to 
overlook  them,  but  to  embrace  and  cherish  them.  Peculiar  favor 
was  shown  to  children  under  the  former  dispensation ;  think  not 
that  less  is  to  be  shown  to  them  under  my  reign.  Look  not  upon 
them,  therefore,  with  feelings  of  indifference.  Strive  not  to  de- 
prive them  of  my  blessing.  Suffer  them  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  to 
sack  children  the  privileges  of  the  gospel  dispensation  belong. 

My  conclusion  is,  that  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  which  makes  it  impossible  or  inconsistent  that  little  children 
should,  in  some  important  sense,  hold  a  relation  to  the  church, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  363 

or  that  the  privileges  of  the  Christian  dispensation  should  belong 
to  them  ;  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  which  can 
furnish  any  valid  objection  against  that  interpretation  of  the  text, 
■which  I  have  undertaken  to  support. 

Again.  Is  there  any  conclusive  objection  against  this  inter- 
pretation from  the  other  passage  referred  to,  that  is.  Matt.  18: 
1 — 6,  in  which  Christ  professedly  makes  use  of  a  little  child  to 
inculcate  upon  his  disciples  the  importance  of  humility  ?  There 
can,  I  think,  be  no  such  objection,  because  the  words  of  Christ 
recorded  here,  were  spoken  on  an  occasion  and  for  a  purpose 
entirely  different  from  those  of  the  passage  we  have  been  examin- 
ing. There,  that  is,  Matt.  19:  13, 14,  Httle  children  were  brought 
to  Christ.  His  disciples  wished  to  exclude  them.  But  Christ 
disapproved  of  their  conduct,  and  gave  them  a  reason  why  the 
children  should  be  permitted  to  come  ;  and  the  reason  was,  that 
to  such  as  they  were  his  kingdom  belonged.  But  in  Matt.  1 8:  1 — 6, 
the  disciples  manifested  the  workings  of  ambition  ;  and  Christ,  to 
teach  them  humility,  took  a  little  child,  and  set  him  before  them, 
and  told  them  that  they  must  become  unambitious  and  humble,  like 
that  child,  or  they  could  not  be  admitted  into  his  kingdom.  Here 
the  character  required  of  his  disciples  was  the  object  and  the  only 
object  Christ  had  in  view.  He  brought  forward  a  little  child, 
merely  to  illustrate  that  character.  In  the  other  place,  the 
children  themselves  were  the  objects  of  attention,  and  the  evident 
design  of  Christ  was  to  show  how  he  regarded  them,  and,  conse- 
quently, how  he  would  have  them  regarded  and  treated  by  his 
disciples.  Now  because  on  one  occasion,  it  was  the  object  of 
Christ  in  all  that  he  said  to  inculcate  humility  upon  his  followers  ; 
we  cannot  surely  infer,  that  this  and  this  only  was  his  object  on 
another  occasion,  which  was  in  itself,  and,  in  all  its  circumstances, 
different. 

But  it  is  said,  referring  to  Mark  10:  15,  that  on  the  very  occa- 
sion, on  which  Christ  declared  respecting  little  children,  "  Of 
Buch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  immediately  after  he  had 
declared  this,  he  inculcated  the  same  lesson  of  humility,  and  in 
nearly  the  same  way,  as  on  the  other  occasion.     "  Whosoever  shall 


364  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  cog  naidlop,  shall 
not  enter  therein." 

My  answer  is,  that  Christ  ^Yas  accustomed  to  make  use  of  all 
the  means  which  were  at  hand,  to  inculcate  duty  upon  his  disci- 
ples, especially  the  duty  of  being  humble  ;  and  that,  after  he  had 
shown  his  affection  for  the  little  children  who  were  brought  to  him, 
and  had  declared  that  the  privileges  of  his  kingdom  belonged  to 
them,  it  was  perfectly  according  to  his  usual  manner,  to  introduce 
another  subject,  and  by  means  of  the  lovely  children,  who  were 
then  before  him,  and  who  were  entitled  to  such  consideration,  to 
teach  his  disciples  what  disposition  they  must  possess.  It  was 
clearly  another  subject,  though  introduced  on  the  occasion  of  the 
children  being  brought  to  him.  Jesus  chose  that  such  an  occa- 
sion should  not  pass  without  profit  to  his  disciples,  whom  he 
doubtless  saw  to  be  in  special  need  of  the  instruction  then  given 
them. 

There  is  also  a  general  consideration  which  has  been  already 
mentioned,  and  which  should  not  be  overlooked  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  text  Matt,  19:  13,  14,  and  which  is  of  special  use  in 
the  interpretation  of  many  a  doubtfiil  passage  in  the  gospels  and 
the  epistles,  namely,  that  it  toas  addressed  to  Jews.  We  have 
already  considered  what  influence  this  circumstance  must  have 
had  on  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  would  understand  the 
commission  they  received  to  proselyte  and  baptize.  Why  should 
we  suppose  it  had  less  influence  here  ?  The  Jews  were  accus- 
tomed to  a  dispensation,  under  which  the  children  of  God's  people 
were  considered  and  treated,  as  belonging  to  their  sacred  commu- 
nity, and  as  entitled  to  inherit  its  blessings.  Their  Scriptures 
plainly  required  that  they  should  be  treated  in  this  manner.  But 
on  the  particular  occasion  now  referred  to,  the  disciples  seem  to 
have  forgotten  this  principle.  They  treated  the  little  children 
who  were  brought  to  Christ,  as  though  it  had  escaped  their  recol- 
lection, that  children  were  the  objects  of  God's  favor,  and  that 
thev  sustained  so  high  a  relation  to  the  society  of  his  people. 
Had  there  not  been  something  fiiulty  in  the  feelings  of  the  disci- 
ples, they  would  not  have  done  such  a  thing,  as  to  forbid  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  365 

children  to  be  brought  to  Christ  for  his  blessing  ;  and  most  cer- 
tainly they  would  not  have  incurred  his  rebuke.  The  answer  of 
Christ  was  perfectly  suited  to  correct  their  mistake,  and  to  teach 
them  what,  as  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  they  would  easily  under- 
stand ;  namely ;  that  children  were  to  have  the  same  relation  to 
God  and  his  people  under  the  Christian  dispensation^  as  before. 
For  I  cannot  but  insist  upon  it,  that,  as  the  disciples  in  that  case 
were  chargeable  with  overlooking  the  importance  of  little  children, 
at  least,  with  not  manifesting  a  suitable  regard  for  them  ;  it  is 
perfectly  natural  to  understand  what  Christ  said  in  reply,  as 
having  been  intended  to  correct  their  mistake,  and  to  show  in 
what  light  children  were  to  be  regarded  under  his  reign. 

The  sense  I  have  given  to  the  passage  in  Matt.  19:  14,  may 
receive  further  support  from  what  Paul  says  respecting  children, 
1  Cor.  7:  14 ;  "  Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  they 
are  holy."  This  text  will  be  considered  more  particularly  in  the 
next  Lecture.  At  present  my  object  is  simply  to  show,  that,  being 
understood  according  to  very  respectable  and  judicious  commenta- 
tors, it  has  an  exact  correspondence  with  my  interpretation  of  the 
text  Matt.  19:  14. 

"Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy;" 
vvv  8s  ayid  iariv.  According  to  Schleusner,  this  means,  but  now 
are  they  held  as  members  of  the  Christian  church ;  "  Jam  vero 
habentur  membra  ecclesiae  Christianae."  At  the  head  of  the  arti- 
cle under  which  this  text  is  quoted,  he  says,  Se  is  called  holy., 
who  is  to  be  numbered  with  the  society  of  Christians.  Wahl,  refer- 
ring to  this  place,  says,  it  is  spoken  of  one  who  is  in  any  way  con- 
nected with  Christians,  and  therefore  to  be  reckoned  among  them. 
According  to  these  and  other  distinguished  authors,  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  so  perfectly  understood  the  nature  and  circumstances 
of  the  Christian  dispensation,  represented  children  as  those  who 
were  to  be  numbered  with  the  society  of  Christians,  and  to  be 
regarded  as  holding  an  important  relation  to  the  Christian  churchy 
even  when  only  one  of  their  parents  was  a  believer.  This  must 
have  involved  the  general  principle,  that  the  children  of  believers 
■were  considered  as  belonging  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  or  the 

31* 


366  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Christian  church.  And  this  is  the  same  thing  as  that  which  I 
have  understood  to  be  taught  by  the  words  of  Christ :  "  Of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  declaration  of  Christ,  and  that 
of  the  Apostle,  had  relation  to  the  same  subject.  Thej  were  both 
intended  to  show  in  what  hght  the  children  of  believers  were  to  be 
regarded.  This  comparison  of  the  two  texts  affords  additional 
satisfaction  as  to  the  true  meaning  of  each. 

I  have  thus  gone  through  with  an  examination  of  the  passage  in 
Matt.  19:  14,  and,  without  relying  on  the  opinions  of  others,  have 
carefully  attended  to  those  considerations  on  both  sides,  which 
appeared  to  be  of  particular  consequence  to  a  right  interpretation. 
But  I  would  not  suffer  myself  to  feel  any  undue  confidence  in  my 
own  opinion  on  such  a  subject  as  this ;  and  I  would  certainly  treat 
with  great  respect  those  who  adopt  a  different  opinion.  Having 
endeavored  impartially  to  exhibit  whatever  appertains  to  a  fair 
discussion  of  the  subject,  I  very  cheerfully  refer  the  whole  to  the 
judgment  of  enlightened  and  candid  men. 

Respectable  authors  are  divided.  According  to  Rosenmiiller 
and  Kuinoel,  Christ  taught  merely  that  his  disciples  must  resemble 
little  children  in  humility  and  gentleness,  and  not  that  children 
themselves  belonged  to  his  kingdom.  But  many  English  writers 
defend  with  various  arguments  the  sense  which  I  have  given. 
Storr  and  Flatt  are  on  the  same  side.  And  they  do  not  merely 
^ive  their  opinion,  although  that  would  be  entitled  to  great 
respect ;  but  what  is  better,  they  give  a  reason  for  their  opinion ; 
and  that  reason  is  the  very  one,  to  which  I  have  attached  the 
liighest  importance  in  the  preceding  discussion.  The  passage 
relating  to  this  text  is  the  following.*  "  Tcav  yag  toiovt<ov  iariv  j) 
^aaiXsCa  tcov  ovQuvav;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Children  must  have  been  included  in  the  word,  such  ;  because  the 
proposition  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to  those  who  have 
as  little  pride  as  children,  would  be  no  reason  why  children  should 
not  be  prevented  from  coming  to  Jesus." 

Now  for  the  application  of  this  passage,  thus  interpreted,  to  the 
subject  in  hand.     No  one  pretends  that  the  children  spoken  of  in 

*  See  Storr's  Bib.  Theol.  Book  3.  §  68. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  367 

this  passage,  were  brought  to  Christ  for  baptism,  or  that  the  pas- 
sage aflfords  direct  proof  of  our  doctrine.  Still  it  has  an  important 
bearing  on  the  subject.  Our  inquiry  is,  in  what  way  the  apostles 
must  have  understood  the  commission  which  Christ  gave  them,  to 
proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations ;  particularly,  whether  they  would 
understand  the  children  of  proselytes  to  be  included.  After 
attending  to  various  circumstances  directly  pertaining  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  finding  what  reason  we  have  to  think,  that  the  apostles 
must  have  understood  the  commission  to  baptize  as  extending  to 
the  children  of  believers  ;  we  proceeded  to  inquire,  whether 
Christ,  the  Author  of  the  new  dispensation,  had  previously  given 
any  instructions,  which  could  have  an  influence  on  their  minds  in 
regard  to  this  subject ;  particularly  whether  he  had  said  anything 
to  show  in  what  light  he  regarded  little  children.  We  fixed  on 
the  passage  in  Matt.  19:  14,  as  answering  this  inquiry ;  that  is,  as 
showing  that  the  children  of  God's  people  were  considered  as 
belonging  to  their  community,  just  as  they  had  belonged  to  the 
community  of  his  people  under  the  former  dispensation.  For- 
merly, they  were  considered  a  holy  seed,  cotisecrated  to  Gfod,  and 
blessed  with  special  privileges,  in  consequence  of  being  the  chil- 
dren of  his  people.  Christ  here  seems  to  teach,  that  they  were  to 
be  considered  in  the  same  light,  and  treated  in  the  same  manner, 
under  his  reign.  When  therefore  the  apostles  received  a  commis- 
sion to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations,  they  had  this  special 
reason  for  understanding  it  as  extending  to  children,  that  Christ 
himself  had  taught  them  before,  that  children  were  to  belong  to 
his  kingdom,  just  as  they  had  belonged  to  the  society  of  God's 
people  under  the  former  economy.  And  if,  wherever  the  Chris- 
tian religion  should  be  propagated  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
established,  the  children  of  believers  were,  according  to  his  instruc- 
tions, to  enjoy,  in  an  important  sense,  the  privileges  of  that  king- 
dom, and  to  be  connected  with  the  society  of  the  disciples ; 
there  could  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  to  receive  the  mark  of 
discipleship.  If  they  were  to  be  regarded  as  holy,  that  is,  conse- 
crated to  God;  they  were  undoubtedly  to  receive  the  si^  of 
consecration. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 

I  close  this  Lecture  with  a  passage  from  Knapp's  Theology, 
under  the  head  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  where  he  shows  that  he  gave 
the  same  sense  to  the  text  in  Matt.  19:  14,  and  reasoned  from  it 
in  the  same  manner  as  I  have  done. 

"  That  Infant  Baptism,  considered  as  a  solemn  rite  of  consecra- 
tion, cannot  be  opposed  to  the  design  and  will  of  Christ,  may  be 
concluded  from  his  own  declaration,  Matt.  19:  14.  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  tmv  yag  roiohmv 
iarlv  Ti  ^aaikiia  rov  ■&sov ;  for  of  such  is  the  hingdom  of  God. 
This  is  indeed  no  command  for  Infant  Baptism,  But  if  children 
can  and  should  have  a  share  in  the  Christian  church  and  in  all 
Christian  privileges,  (^^aaileia  rov  &eov,}  it  cannot  be  improper  to 
introduce  them  into  the  Christian  church  by  this  solemn  rite  of 
initiation.  And  if,  according  to  the  design  of  Christ,  children, 
from  their  earliest  youth  up,  are  to  have  a  share  in  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  Christians ;  it  must  also  be  agreeable  to  his  will, 
solemnly  to  introduce  them,  by  this  rite  of  consecration,  into  the 
nursery  of  his  disciples.     Compare  1  Cor.  7:  14." 


i% 


LECTURE     CXIV. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


We  have  already  inquired,  whether  there  was  anything  in  the 
particular  instructions  of  Christ  to  his  apostles,  previous  to  the 
final  commission  he  gave  them,  which  would  naturally  lead  them 
to  understand  that  commission,  as  intended  to  include  infant  chil- 
dren. We  shall  now  inquire,  whether  we  can  be  assisted  in  deter- 
mining how  they  understood  that  commission,  by  anything  in  their 
conduct  while  executiny  their  commission,  or  any  declaration  made 
in  their  writings. 

The  mode  of  reasoning  which  I  have  adopted,  does  not  require, 
and  does  not  lead  us  to  expect  a  dij-ect,  positive  declaration,  that 
they  baptized  infants,  or  considered  them  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. For  if  the  apostles  and  first  Christians  had  a  persuasion, 
that  children  were  to  hold  a  place  in  the  community  of  God's 
people  under  the  new  dispensation,  similar  to  what  they  had 
held  before,  and  that  they  were  to  receive  the  new  mark  of  spe- 
cial relation  to  God,  as  they  had  received  the  old  ;  then  there 
was  no  more  occasion  for  the  apostles  expressly  to  mention  the 
fact  that  children  were  baptized,  than  there  was  for  Joshua,  and 
Samuel,  and  all  the  writers  of  the  history  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament,  to  mention  at  every  period,  that  children  eight  days 
old  were  circumcised.  And  the  case  might  be  exactly  so  at  the 
present  time.  Ministers  or  missionaries  who  hold  to  Infant  Bap- 
tism, might  write  a  history  of  their  ministry,  and  the  success 
attending  it,  for  many  years,  without  any  mention  of  the  baptism 


370  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  children.  But  we  should  consider  such  an  omission  as  this,  to 
be  no  proof  that  children  were  not  baptized.  For  it  would  be  ob- 
vious, that  such  ministers  might  be  in  circumstances,  which  would 
render  it  unnecessary  for  them  to  make  any  express  mention  of 
Infant  Baptism.  It  might  be  that  no  one  acquainted  with  them 
could  have  the  least  doubt  respecting  their  practice.  At  the 
present  day,  indeed,  when  Christians  every  where  are  divided  on 
this  subject,  such  silence  might  not  be  what  Ave  should  look  for. 
But  were  all  Christians  united  in  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism, 
as  we  apprehend  the  primitive  Christians  were,  there  might  be  no 
occasion  whatever  to  make  particular  mention  of  it.  In  all  such 
cases,  we  should  understand  the  practice  of  ministers  to  be  ac- 
cording to  what  we  knew  of  their  opinions.  If  they  believed  in 
Infant  Baptism,  we  should  have  no  doubt  of  their  being  in  the 
practice  of  baptizing  children,  although  in  a  brief  account  of  their 
ministry,  they  should  say  nothing  about  such  a  practice. 

The  evidence,  to  which  I  now  invite  your  attention,  is  incidental 
or  circumstantial ;  but  it  is  not  on  that  account  less  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. It  is  obvious,  that  an  undesigned  reference  or  allusion  to 
the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  or  the  declaration  of  some  principle 
or  fact  implying  it,  may  afiford  evidence  as  satisfactory,  as  a  direct 
assertion  of  the  apostles. 

After  these  introductory  remarks,  let  us  proceed  to  the  subject 
above  stated.  My  position  is,  that  there  are  passages  in  the  Acts  of 
the  apostles,  and  in  the  epistles,  which  fairly  imply  that  the  apostles 
baptized  children,  and  that  they  understood  their  commission  to 
baptize,  as  extending  to  children ;  and  that  these  passages  have  a 
more  natural  and  consistent  sense  on  the  supposition  that  Infant 
Baptism  was  the  apostolic  practice,  than  on  the  contrary  supposition. 
I  shall  first  refer  to  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  baptism  of 
households  or  families.  It  is  said  of  Lydia,  Acts  16;  14,  15,  that 
the  Lord  opened  her  heart  to  attend  to  the  instructions  of  Paul, 
and  that  she  was  baptized  and  her  household.  And  in  the  same 
chapter,  v.  33,  we  are  told  that  the  jailer  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his,  that  is,  all  who  belonged  to  him,  straightway/,  or  immediately. 
And  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  1:  16,  "  I  baptized  the  household  of 
Stephanas." 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  371 

The  reasoning  from  such  passages  is  this.  The  word  oixia,  ren- 
dered house  or  household,  had  been  commonlj  used  to  comprise 
children  with  their  parents,  much  in  the  same  manner  as  the  word 
family  or  household  is  used  now.  And  it  is  well  known,  that  it 
had  been  the  manner  of  the  people  of  God,  to  consider  and  treat 
their  families,  as  consecrated  to  God,  and  intimately  associated 
■with  them  in  the  concerns  of  religion.  As  therefore  the  apostles, 
yrho  were  accustomed  to  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
to  the  practice  there  enjoined,  speak  familiarly  of  their  baptizing 
households,  or  families  ;  it  is  no  more  than  reasonable  to  suppose, 
that  those  families  generally  contained  children,  and  that  those 
children  were  baptized.  And  if  this  was  the  case,  the  apostles  must 
have  understood  their  commission  as  including  children.  It  will 
be  observed,  that  whenever  the  apostles  speak  of  baptizing  house- 
holds, they  speak  of  it  without  any  restriction.  Now  is  this  a 
circumstance  w^hich  is  familiarly  mentioned  in  histories,  written  by 
those  ministers  who  do  not  baptize  infants  ?  For  them  to  speak 
freely  and  without  qualification,  of  baptizing  families,  would  be 
inconsistent  with  their  practice.  As  to  the  instances  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament  of  the  baptism  of  families,  —  who  has  any  right 
to  say,  that  none  of  those  families  contained  any  but  adults,  —  and 
adult  believers  ?     Who  can  think  this  in  any  degree  probable  ? 

To  show  more  clearly  what  is  the  natural  import  of  the  account 
given  in  the  New  Testament  oi  family  baptisms,  suppose  the  fol- 
lowing case.  Two  missionaries  have  lor  a  number  of  years  been 
successfully  laboring  for  the  conversion  of  an  Indian  tribe  in  the 
wilderness  of  America.  We  have  heard  of  their  labors,  and  of 
their  success,  and  have  rejoiced  in  it,  but  have  never  learned,  and 
have  never  to  this  day  inquired,  whether  they  practised  Infant 
Baptism,  or  not.  For  special  reasons,  this  now  becomes  a  subject 
of  inquiry ;  and  the  only  means  of  information  which  we  have  at 
hand,  is  a  brief  history  which  those  missionaries  have  published  of  '■ 
their  labors.  In  that  history,  they  speak  of  several  instances  in 
which  individuals  embraced  Christianity  and  received  baptism. 
They  inform  us,  that  at  such  a  time  they  baptized  one  of  the 
chiefs,  and  his  family  ;  and  that,  at  another  time,  they  baptized 


372  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

such  a  man,  and  all  his  ;  and  again,  another  man,  and  his  house- 
hold. This  is  all  the  information  thej  give.  They  mention,  with- 
out explanation,  the  baptism  of  several  persons,  and  their  house- 
holds, and  so  make  family-haptisms  a  noticeable  circumstance  in 
the  history  of  their  mission.  Would  not  such  a  circumstance  lead 
us  to  think  that  they  practised  Infant  Baptism  ?  Be  sure,  it  might 
be  said,  that  they  do  not  expressly  mention  the  baptism  of  the  little 
children,  and  that  all  who  belonged  to  those  families  may  have 
been  adults,  and  adult  believers.  This,  I  admit,  Avould  be  possible. 
But  would  it  be  probable?  Would  those,  who  do  not  baptize 
children,  be  likely  to  speak  in  this  manner  ?  Should  we  not  think 
it  very  singular,  to  find  accounts  o^ family-baptisms  in  a  history  of 
Baptist  Missions  ? 

I  do  not  offer  the  circumstance  under  consideration,  as  a  decisive 
argument.  But  does  not  the  account,  which  the  apostles  give  of 
the  baptism  of  households,  perfectly  agree  Avith  the  supposition, 
that  they  were  in  the  practice  of  baptizing  children  ?  If  we  admit 
that  they  understood  children  to  be  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  as 
they  had  before  been  of  circumcision  ;  would  not  such  an  account 
be  just  what  we  would  expect  ?  But  would  it  be  so,  if  we  should 
not  admit  this  ? 

If  any  one  should  ask  whether  the  families  referred  to  might  not 
contain  servants,  as  well  as  children  ;  and  whether  we  are  to  sup- 
pose that  such  servants  were  baptized,  as  the  servants  of  Abraham 
were  circumcised  ; —  my  answer  would  be,  that,  for  ought  we  know, 
there  might  be  servants,  and  that  if  the  servants  stood  in  as  near 
a  relation  to  their  Christian  masters,  and  were  to  be  as  much  under 
their  pious  instruction  and  guidance,  as  the  servants  of  Abraham 
where  under  his,  I  see  no  reason  why  they  should  not  have  been 
consecrated  to  God  by  baptism. 

I  have  already  referred  to  1  Cor.  7:  14,  as  affording  collateral 
support  to  the  construction  which  was  given  to  Matt.  19:  14.  I 
propose  now  to  give  this  text  a  more  particular  examination. 

There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  text,  which  deserve  special 
notice.  The  first  that  I  shall  mention  is  that  of  Dr.  Gill,  a  very 
distinguished  Baptist  writer,  who  expresses  what  he  understands 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  text  in  the  following  paraphrase.     Tlie 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  373 

unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  ivife^  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else  were  your  eJdldren  unclean  ; 
but  noiv  are  they  holy.  The  parties  spoken  of  "  are  duly,  rightly, 
and  legally  espoused  to  each  other ;  —  otherwise,  that  is,  if  they 
are  not  truly  married  to  each  other,  the  children  must  be  spurious, 
and  not  legitimate.  IJlse  were  your  children  unclean,  but  noiv  are 
they  holy;  that  is,  if  the  marriage  contracted  between  them  was 
not  valid,  and  if  since  the  conversion  of  one  of  them,  it  can  never 
be  thought  to  be  good  ;  then  the  children  begotten  and  born,  either 
when  both  were  infidels,  or  since  one  of  them  was  converted,  must 
be  unlawfully  begotten,  baseborn,  and  not  a  genuine,  legitimate 
offspring ;  but  as  the  parents  are  lawfully  married,  the  children 
born  of  them  are  in  a  civil  and  legal  sense  holy,  that  is,  legitimate." 

The  most  powerful  argument  which  has  been  urged  in  favor  of 
this  interpretation,  and  one  attended  with  much  plausibility  is, 
that  it  seems,  at  first  view,  to  agree  with  the  object  of  the  Apostle, 
■who  directs  that  a  believer  should  not  put  away  an  unbelieving 
partner,  and  who  asserts  as  Dr.  Gill  understands  him,  that  the 
believing  and  unbelieving  partners  are  lawfully  joined  in  marriage  ; 
and  that,  were  it  not  so,  their  children  would  be  illegitimate  ;  but 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  lawfulness  of  the  connection  between 
the  parents,  their  children  are  legitimate. 

I  remark  in  reply  to  this,  that  a  different  sense  will  agree,  to 
say  the  least,  equally  well  with  the  manifest  object  of  the  Apostle. 
The  very  direction,  that  an  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  should 
not  be  put  away  by  the  other  party,  implies,  that  there  is  a  mat- 
rimonial connection  between  them,  and  that  the  connection  is 
lawful.  But  the  Apostle  not  only  gives  this  direction,  but  enfor- 
ces it  by  a  proper  reason,  and  the  reason  he  suggests,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  is  this ;  that  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  is  sanctified 
by  the  believing  partner  in  such  a  sense,  that,  in  consequence  of  it, 
their  children  are  separated  from  heathenism,  consecrated  to  God, 
and  brought  into  the  society  of  CJiristians.  This  was  then,  and 
would  be  now,  a  consideration  of  great  weight,  —  much  greater,  I 
should  think,  than  the  mere  legitimacy  of  the  children.  This  con- 
sideration did  indeed  presuppose  their  legitimacy  ;  but  it  had  this 

VOL.  ni.  32 


374  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

important  point  in  addition,  namely,  that  the  cJiildren  ivere  a  holy 
seed,  consecrated  to  God,  and  entitled  to  the  special  privileges  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.  Now  this  consideration,  as  it  includes 
the  other,  and  has  so  much  in  addition,  must  be  a  more  powerful 
reason  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  direction,  than  the  other 
taken  by  itself.  So  that,  in  respect  to  the  design  of  the  Apostle, 
and  the  reasoning  employed.  Dr.  Gill's  interpretation  has  certainly 
no  advantage  over  the  other. 

But  there  are  considerations  of  great  weight  against  Dr.  Gill's 
construction. 

1.  It  is  contrary  to  the  usm  loqueyidi.  It  puts  a  sense  upon 
the  words  TiylaGxai  and  aym,  which  is  widely  different  from  the 
prevailing  sense  ;  yea,  different  from  the  sense  which  they  have  in 
any  other  passages  of  Scripture.  And  Dr.  Gill  himself  does  not 
pretend  that  either  of  the  words  is  used  in  the  sense  he  contends 
for,  in  any  other  text.  He  does  indeed  attempt  to  support  his 
rendering  by  referring  to  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  ^ij'np  in  the  Tal- 
mudic  books,  where  it  has  the  sense  of  espousing  merely.  But 
Schleusner  objects  to  the  argument,  and  says,  "  that  the  notion  of 
espousing,  which  certain  interpreters  have  attributed  to  the  word 
TO  asyia'Celv  from  the  use  of  the  word  d'np  in  the  Talmudic  books,  is, 
as  any  one  must  see,  manifestly  foreign  to  this  place."  There  is 
not  one  of  the  senses  of  te'ij?,  given  by  Gesenias,  and  not  one  of 
the  many  senses  of  dyid^m,  given  by  Schleusner  and  Walil,  which 
favors  the  rendering  of  Dr.  Gill.  The  same  is  true  of  the  adject- 
ive dpa.  Schleusner  and  Wahl  give  a  great  variety  of  senses,  but 
none  of  them  relate  to  the  legitimacy  of  children.  Nor  is  axa- 
S-aQTog,  nor  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word,  ever  used  to  designate 
a  spurious  or  illegitimate  offspring.  Good  use,  then,  is  entirely 
against  the  rendering  of  Dr.  Gill. 

2.  Although  the  advocates  of  Dr.  Gill's  interpretation  of  the 
text  say  much  of  its  perfect  correspondence  with  the  object  and 
the  reasoning  of  the  Apostle  ;  I  think  the  reasoning,  or  the  train 
of  thought,  in  one  important  respect,  though  not  mentioned  by  any 
writer  whom  I  have  consulted,  is  clearly  inconsistent  with  that  in- 
terpretation.    The  Apostle  says,  "  Otherivise,''^  that  is,  were  it  not 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  375 

as  I  have  said,  that  the  unbclievino;  husband  is  sanctified  by  the 
wife  and  the  unbcheving  wife  by  the  husband  ;  "  your  children 
•would  be  unclean,  but  now  are  they  lioly"  The  children  are  holy, 
in  the  sense  intended,  in  consequence  of  the  influence  which  the 
believing  wife  has  upon  the  unbelieving  husband,  or  the  behoving 
husband  upon  the  unbelieving  wife.  He  is  sanctified  by  her,  and 
she  by  him  ;  and  in  consequence  of  this  sanetification,  whatever  it 
is,  the  children  are  holy.  "Without  this  sanctification  of  the  unbeliev- 
ing party  by  the  believing,  the  children  would  be  unclean.  Sup- 
pose now  husband  and  wife  are  both  unbelievers.  The  sanctification 
spoken  of,  whatever  it  is,  does  not  exist ;  of  course,  the  reason  or 
cause  of  the  holiness  of  the  children  does  not  exist.  And  if  the 
cause  of  their  hohness  does  not  exist,  they  cannot  be  holy ;  they 
are  unclean.  But  are  they  illegitimate  ?  May  there  not  be  lawful 
marriage  between  a  husband  and  wife  who  are  both  unbelievers  ? 
Is  it  necessary  to  the  lawfulness  of  marriage  and  to  the  legitimacy 
of  children,  that  the  husband  or  the  wife  should  have  Christian 
faith  ?  How  was  it  with  those  who  were  married  and  had  children 
■while  they  were  heathen  ?  Were  their  children  bastards  ?  Were 
they  ever  considered  and  treated  so  by  the  apostles  ?  They  cer- 
tainly would  have  been  considered  so,  had  not  their  parents  been 
lawfully  married.  But  if  lawful  marriage  may  exist,  where  neither 
husband  nor  wife  is  a  Christian  ;  they  may  surely  have  legitimate 
children.  But  they  cannot  have  children  who  are  holy,  in  the 
sense  of  the  Apostle  ;  because  being  holy  in  that  sense  is  evidently 
the  consequence  of  an  unbelieving  father  being  sanctified  by  a 
believ'ing  mother,  or  an  unbelieving  mother  by  a  believing  father. 
Or  the  argument  may  be  stated  thus :  If  both  parents  are  unbe- 
lievers, —  if  they  are  j'^a^ans,  most  surely  their  children  cannot 
be  considered  a  holy  seed,  in  the  sense  of  the  Old  Testament  or 
the  New.  They  are  dxd&uQTa,  unclean,  heathen.  But  arc  they 
illegitimate?  If  not,  —  if  those  who  are  joined  in  marriage, 
though  both  of  them  are  unbelievers  and  pagans,  may  have  legiti- 
Tnate  children  ;  then  clearly  the  faith  of  one  of  the  parents  and 
the  sanctification  of  the  other  by  means  of  that  faith,  cannot  be 
necessary  in  order  to  the  legitimacy  of  the  children.     But  it  is 


376  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

necessary  in  order  to  their  being  holy  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle  ; 
for  he  sajs  expressly,  that  were  it  not  for  such  a  sanctification  of 
one  parent  by  the  other,  the  children  would  be  unclean,  which  is 
the  opposite  of  being  holy.  Thus  it  becomes  manifest  that  ayia 
and  dxuO^uQTa  cannot  be  rendered  legitimate  and  illegitimate, 
without  involving  us  m  inextricable  difficulty  as  to  the  Apostle's 
reasoning.  But  this  difficulty  is  avoided  by  another  interpretation, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel. 

There  is  no  occasion  to  dwell  upon  the  opinion  of  those,  who 
consider  the  Apostle  as  speaking  of  the  real  conversion  of  an  un- 
believing by  a  believing  partner,  or  of  the  prospect  of  such 
conversion.  For  although  this  opinion  may  seem  to  derive  some 
support  from  v.  16,  it  does  not  agree  witli  the  statement  of  the 
case. 

The  other  sense  of  the  text,  which  I  shall  now  particularly  con- 
aider,  is  this  :  The  unbelieving  husband,  by  his  voluntary  connec- 
tion with  a  believing  wife,  is,  in  a  manner,  separated  from  the 
heathen,  and  brought  into  an  alhance  with  Christians.  His  being 
^^  pleased  to  dwell  with  "  such  a  wife  shows,  that  he  is  not  an  out- 
rageous infidel,  but  that  he  has  some  sober  reflection,  and  is  will- 
ing to  be  in  Christian  society.  He  stands  in  that  relation  to  his 
wife  in  which,  as  Scripture  teaches,  he  becomes  one  with  her.  On 
account  of  this  near  relation,  he  is  to  be  regarded  and  treated  very 
differently  from  Avhat  he  would  be,  if  no  such  relation  existed.  He 
has  been  and  is  so  sanctified,  ^yiaarai,  —  his  condition  relatively  is 
so  affected  by  his  marriage  with  her,  that  her  living  with  him  will 
be  attended  with  no  guilt,  and  will  deprive  her  of  no  privileges. 
She  has  therefore  no  occasion  to  put  him  away,  but  may  as  lawfully 
and  properly  continue  to  dwell  with  him,  as  if  he  were  a  Christian. 
Were  it  not  for  this  ;  that  is  ;  were  it  not  that  his  state  relatively 
is  thus  affected  by  his  connection  with  her  ;  in  other  words,  were 
he,  in  all  respects,  to  be  reckoned  among  the  unsanctified  heathen ; 
were  he  openly  and  entirely  united  to  their  society  ;  were  his  wife's 
piety  and  her  relation  to  him  a  matter  of  no  consideration,  and  were 
he  to  be  regarded  just  as  he  would  be,  if  he  had  no  connec- 
tion at  all  with  God's  people  ;  then  indeed  his  children  would  be 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  377 

« 

unclean.  Their  relation  to  such  a  father,  if  he  had  not  a 
matrimonial  connection  with  a  pious  wife,  would  render  them 
heathen  children,  and  would  exclude  them  from  the  peculiar  priv- 
ileges of  the  children  of  God's  people.  But  now,  as  his  condition 
is  so  altered  by  his  matrimonial  connection  with  a  believing  wife  ; 
as  he  is  by  that  connection  so  sanctified,  that  he  and  his  wife  stand 
■well  in  respect  to  their  domestic  state  ;  his  children  arc  not  to  be 
regarded  as  heathen  children,  but  as  a  holt/  seed,  a  Christian  off- 
spring, entitled  to  the  privileges  of  a  special  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  the  privileges  of  a  Christian  education.  In  other 
"words ;  the  people  of  God  are  not  to  treat  them  as  unclean,  —  are 
not  to  separate  them  from  their  society  ;  but  are  to  receive  them,  to 
adhere  to  them,  and  to  train  them  up  for  the  service  of  Christ. 

But  there  is  another  argument  in  favor  of  this  interpretation, 
namely,  common  usage,  the  sense  generally  attached  in  other  parts 
of  Scripture  to  the  principal  words  on  which  the  interpretation 
must  depend  ;  and  especially  the  sense  which  these  words  have, 
•when  apphed  to  the  same  subjects.  It  should  never  be  forgotten, 
that  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  wrote  the  book  containing  the  text 
under  consideration,  was  by  birth  and  education  a  Hebrew ;  that 
he  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  that  in 
a  very  remarkable  degree  he  transfused  the  peculiarities  of  those 
Scriptures  into  his  own  writings.  He  adopted  the  phraseology  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  He  wrote  in  their  idiom.  Accordingly 
it  will  be  of  the  first  importance  to  notice  the  peculiar  Hebrew 
sense  of  the  principal  words  found  in  the  passage  before  us. 

'u4xd&aQTog,  according  to  Schleusner,  signifies,  that  which  is 
prohibited  by  the  3Iosaic  law,  or  that  from  tvhich  the  people  of  Crod 
were  required  to  separate  themselves.  Referring  to  Acts  14:  28, 
he  says  :  "  A  man  is  here  called  dxd&agtog,  unclean,  with  whom 
the  Jews  thought  it  unlawful  to  have  any  familiar  intercourse." 
He  represents  it  as  often  used  to  denote  a  pagan,  an  alien  from 
the  worship  of  the  true  Grod,  or  one  who  does  not  belong  to  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  or  to  the  society  of  Christians.  The  text  under 
consideration  he  renders  thus  :  "  Alioquin  et  liberi  vestri  remoti 
essent  a  societate  Christianorum ; "  Otherwise  your  children  also 
32* 


378  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

would  be  removed  from  the  society  of  Christians.  He  quotes  the 
passage  in  2  Cor.  6:  17,  as  exhibiting  the  same  sense  of  the  word : 
'A-Ad{>a(nog  [irj  amea&s',  touch  not  the  unclean  thing ;  i.  e.  as  the 
connection  shows,  have  no  intercourse  with  pagans.  Wahl  agrees 
■with  Schleusner  :  "  If  it  were  otherwise,  it  would  follow  that  jour 
children  also  were  not  to  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  Chris- 
tian community."  Lightfoot  is  of  the  same  opmion.  He  says : 
"  That  the  words  dxd&agra  and  dyia  refer  not  to  legitimacy  or 
illegitimacy,  but  to  the  gentile  or  Christian  state  ;  that  the  chil- 
dren of  the  gentiles,  or  pagans,  were  by  the  Jews  considered  as 
dudi^aQza,  unclean,  and  the  children  of  Jews,  dyia,  holy,  and  that 
in  the  passage  under  consideration,  the  Apostle  refers  to  this  well 
known  sense  of  the  word ;  that  his  treatment  of  the  subject  does 
not  turn  on  this  hinge,  whether  a  child,  born  of  parents,  one  of 
whom  was  a  Christian  and  the  other  a  heathen,  was  a  legitimate 
offspring,  but  whether  he  was  a  Christian  offspring."  Whitby 
presents  the  argument  still  more  fully.  "  The  Apostle  does  not 
say,  else  were  your  children  bastards,  but  now  are  they  legitimate  ; 
but  else  were  they  unclean,  i.  e.  heathen  children,  not  to  be  owned 
as  a  holy  seed,  and  therefore  not  to  be  admitted  into  covenant  with 
God  as  belonging  to  his  people.  That  this  is  the  true  import  of 
the  words  dxd&aQza  and  dyia,  will  be  apparent  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  which  the  heathen  are  styled  the  unclean,  in  opposition  to 
the  Jews  in  covenant  with  God,  and  therefore  styled  a  holy  peo- 
ple. The  Jews  looked  upon  all  heathens  and  their  offspring,  as 
unclean,  by  reason  of  their  want  of  circumcision,  the  sign  of  the 
covenant.  Hence,  whereas  it  is  said  that  Joshua  circumcised  the 
people,  the  Septuagint  say,  TzsQisxd&aQsv,  he  cleansed  them.  To 
this  sense  of  the  words  unclean  and  holy,  the  Apostle  may  here 
most  rationally  be  supposed  to  allude,  declaring  that  the  seed  of 
holy  persons,  as  Christians  are  called,  are  also  holy.  And  though 
one  of  the  parents  be  still  a  heathen,  yet  is  the  denomination  to  be 
taken  from  the  better,  and  so  their  offspring  are  to  be  esteemed 
not  as  heathens,  i.  e.  unclea^i,  but  holy,  as  all  Christians  by  denom- 
ination are.  So  Clemens  Alexandrinus  infers,  saying  ;  '  I  supposo 
the  seed  of  those  that  are  holy,  is  holy,  according  to  that  saying 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  379 

of  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  etc." 
Whitby  confutes  the  other  rendering,  '  Else  were  your  children 
bastards,'  by  saying  ;  "  The  word  used  for  bastard  by  the  Apostle 
being  vo&ogy  Heb.  12:  8,  and  the  word  yvriaiog  being  the  proper 
word  for  a  legitimate  offspring ;  had  the  Apostle  intended  such  a 
sense,  he  would  have  used  the  words,  which  in  the  Greek  writers 
are  generally  used  in  that  sense,  and  not  such  words  as  in  the 
Septuagint  and  in  the  Jewish  writers  always  have  a  relation  to 
federal  hoHness,  or  the  want  of  it." 

The  authors  to  whom  I  have  referred,  and  other  writers  of  the 
highest  character  as  philologists  and  commentators,  are  all  of  one 
mind  as  to  the  sense  of  the  phrase,  "  now  are  they  holy."  Now 
are  they  to  he  considered  as  belonging  to  the  Christian  commimity. 
God's  people  are  not  to  separate  from  them  as  heathen  children, 
but  to  treat  them  as  Christian  children.  Wahl  says,  "  it  is  spo- 
ken of  one  who  is  in  any  way  connected  with  Christians,  and 
therefore  to  be  reckoned  among  them."  So  also  Calvin.  "  The 
children  of  the  Jews,  because  they  were  made  heirs  of  the  cove- 
nant, and  distinguished  from  the  children  of  the  impious,  were 
called  a  holy  seed.  And  for  the  same  reason,  the  children  of 
Christians,  even  when  only  one  of  the  parents  is  pious,  are  ac- 
counted holy,  and  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostle,  differ 
from  the  impure  seed  of  idolaters.  Doederlein  and  Knapp  allude 
to  this  text  as  having  the  same  sense.  Against  supposing  that  the 
Apostle  meant  to  assert  the  legitimacy  of  children,  Doddridge 
urges,  that  "  this  is  an  unscriptural  sense  of  the  word,  and  that 
the  argument  will  by  no  means  bear  it." 

The  interpretation  I  have  given  of  the  text  agrees  very  nearly 
with  what  is  expressed  in  the  following  quotation  from  Flatt's  com- 
mentary. He  says ;  "  riyiaatai  may  be  rendered  thus  :  he  is 
made  ayiog  in  a  certain  respect.  Inasmuch  as  he  lived  in  society 
with  a  Christian  wife,  he  is,  in  a  measure,  separated  from  Jews 
and  heathen,  and  stands  in  connection  with  the  Christian  commu- 
nity." In  consequence  of  which,  his  children,  who  would  other- 
wise be  considered  as  having  no  connection  with  the  people  of 
God,  will  be  Christian  children. 


880  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  bj  way  of  objection  to  this  rendering, 
that  riyiaatai  must  have  the  same  general  sense  with  ayia ;  and 
that  if  ayia,  holy,  implies  that  the  children,  to  whom  it  was 
applied,  were  consecrated  to  God,  and  were  entitled  to  special 
privileges ;  then  ijyiaarai,  is  sanctified,  must  imply,  that  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  or  wife  was  in  like  manner  consecrated  to  God, 
and  was  entitled  to  the  same  special  privileges. 

But  to  this  it  may  be  rephed,  that  it  is  nothing  uncommon  for 
the  same  word  to  have  a  variety  of  significations,  not  only  in  dif- 
ferent sentences,  but  in  the  same  sentence.  Instances  of  this 
might  easily  be  pointed  out  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  other  writings. 
In  all  such  cases,  the  obvious  nature  and  circumstances  of  the 
subject  to  which  the  word  is  applied,  must  help  us  to  determine  in 
what  particular  sense  it  is  used.  Any  one  who  will  consult  an  Eng- 
lish or  Latin  Dictionary,  or  a  Greek  Lexicon,  may  see  how  different 
subjects,  and  the  different  circumstances  of  the  same  subject,  con- 
stantly vary  the  signification  of  the  same  word,  sometimes  in  small 
and  almost  imperceptible  degrees,  and  sometimes  in  higher  degrees. 
And  if  the  sense  of  the  same  tvord  thus  varies  ;  surely  it  can  be 
nothing  strange  that  these  two  words,  one  a  verb,  and  the  other  an 
adjective,  should  vary  a  httle  in  their  signification,  when  apphed  to 
subjects  so  different,  as  those  now  referred  to.  So  that  our  giving 
somewhat  of  a  different  sense  to  riyiaarai  is  sanctified  from  what  we 
give  to  ayia,  are  holy,  is  no  valid  objection  to  our  interpretation  of 
the  text. 

After  all,  it  will  be  seen  that,  according  to  the  interpretation  I 
have  given,  the  two  words,  though  the  one  is  a  verb  and  the  other  an 
adjective,  have  the  same  general  sense,  i.  e.  the  sense  of  being 
separated,  set  apart,  or  made  fit  for  a  particular  use  ;  and  that  the 
difference  arises  from  the  obvious  difference  of  the  subjects.  The 
general  notion  of  being  sanctified  is  first  applied  to  an  uncon- 
verted heathen,  connected  in  marriage  with  a  Christian ;  and  it  is 
apphed  in  reference  to  a  particular  question,  that  is,  whether  it  is 
proper  and  advisable,  that  a  Christian  should  continue  to  live  with 
an  unbeheving  partner.  Now  when  the  Apostle  says,  in  reference 
to  this  question,  "  the  unbeheving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  381 

wife,"  it  is  natural  to  understand  him  to  speak  of  a  sanctification 
adapted  to  the  subject  under  consideration.  And  a  sanctification 
adapted  to  that  subject  would  seem  to  be  this  ;  that  by  his  con- 
nection in  marriage  with  a  beheving  wife,  he  is,  in  some  sort, 
separated  from  the  society  of  the  heathen,  certainly  from  the 
familiar  intercourse  with  them  which  he  once  had  ;  that,  on  account 
of  the  pious  woman  with  whom  he  is  so  closely  connected,  he  is  to 
be  regarded  in  a  light  different  from  that,  in  which  he  would  be 
regarded,  if  he  were  altogether  a  pagan,  and  had  no  such  relation 
to  a  Christian  partner ;  and  that,  by  the  effect  which  her  faith 
produces  upon  him,  he  is  brought  into  such  a  state,  that  she  may 
•with  propriety  continue  to  live  with  him.  Their  intercourse  comes 
under  a  sanctifying  influence,  hy  means  of  her  piety.  This  inter- 
pretation, it  is  evident,  gives  the  same  general  sense  to  ijyiaatcu  as 
to  ayia,  the  last  being  applied  to  children,  and  denoting  that  they, 
by  their  very  birth,  are  separated  from  paganism,  and  brought  into 
the  nursery  of  the  Christian  church,  where  they  are  to  be  conse- 
crated to  God,  and  trained  up  for  his  service. 

It  will  cast  a  still  clearer  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  text,  to 
inquire  what  was  the  occasion  of  the  doubt  which  arose  in  the 
minds  of  the  Corinthian  converts,  and  rendered  the  advice  of  the 
Apostle  necessary.  This  doubt  unquestionably  arose,  not  in  con- 
sequence of  anything  in  the  original  institution  of  marriage,  but  in 
consequence  of  the  special  law  which  God  gave  to  the  Israelites, 
forbidding  them  to  contract  marriages  with  any  of  the  idolatrous 
people  around  them  ;  a  law  which  was  intended,  like  many  others, 
to  preserve  them  a  holy  nation.,  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  ivorld, 
till  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  doubt  might  be  occasioned  more 
directly  by  the  instances,  in  which  such  prohibited  marriages  had 
been  dissolved  by  divine  direction,  particularly  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 
The  people  of  God  had  formed  marriages  with  the  daughters  of 
the  surrounding  nations ;  so  that  as  it  was  said,  the  holy  seed  i.  e. 
the  Jews,  had  mingled  themseUes  with  those  idolatrous  people. 
After  a  time,  those  who  had  thus  offended,  were  brought  to  con- 
sider the  evil  of  what  they  had  done  ;  and  they  made  a  covenant 
"with  God  to  put  away  all  the  wives,  and  such  as  were  horn  of  him^ 


882  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

according  to  the  di^^ne  command.  See  Ezra,  Chap.  ix.  and  x. 
Now  the  Apostle,  considering  that  the  economy  of  the  former  dis- 
pensation was  changed  and  that  a  new  precept  was  called  for,  vir- 
tually told  the  Corinthian  Christians,  that  that  ancient  national  law 
respecting  marriage  was  not  binding  upon  them,  any  more  than 
the  law  of  circumcision  ;  that  those  believers  who  were  lawfully 
married  to  unbelievers  had  no  occasion  to  dissolve  the  marriage 
bond.  And  he  suggested  to  them  one  consideration  of  great  weight ; 
namely ;  that  if  according  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  example  of 
the  people  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  they  were  to  put  awoy  their  unbe- 
lieving partners,  and  so  treat  them  as  pagans,  dxdx^aQTu,  unclean  ; 
they  must  consider  their  ddldren  also  as  unclean,  i.  e.  JieatJien 
children,  and  put  them  away  likewise,  as  the  people  did  in  the  case 
referred  to.  In  opposition  to  this,  the  Apostle  appeals  to  a  fact 
which  was  well  known  ;  namely  ;  that  the  offspring  of  such  mar- 
riages were  considered,  as  they  are  now,  to  be  a  holi/  seed,  dyia, 
just  as  if  both  parents  were  believers,  and  so  were  fit  to  be  devoted 
to  God,  and  to  enjoy  special  privileges  in  the  society  of  his  people. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  in  this  examination  of  the  passage  before 
us,  my  chief  reliance  is  upon  well  known  usage  as  to  the  word  dyiog, 
and  its  corresponding  Hebrew  ^^i^  among  the  Jews,  especially 
"when  applied  to  Israehtes,  whether  men  or  children,  by  way  of 
distinction  from  other  nations. 

I  have  only  one  more  remark.  Those  who  hold  to  Infant  Bap- 
tism, believe  that  the  Children  of  Christians,  even  those  children 
who  had  only  one  believing  parent,  were,  in  the  Apostle's  time, 
and  in  the  Corinthian  church,  actually  devoted  to  God  in  baptism, 
and  so  brought  into  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  Christian  church. 
Now  on  this  supposition,  what  can  be  more  natural,  than  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Apostle  referred  to  this  fact,  when  he  said,  the  chil- 
dren spoken  of  were  dyia,  holy,  i.  e.  set  apart,  consecrated  to  God? 

The  text,  thus  interpreted,  presents  a  very  satisfactory  view  of 
the  subject  under  consideration,  and  shows  how  the  apostles  under- 
stood their  commission.  For  we  see,  that  wherever  the  Christian 
religion  took  effect,  and  men  became  believers,  and  formed  them- 
selves into  a  society,  their  children  were  considered  as  appertain- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  383 

ing  to  the  same  society,  and  as  set  apart,  and  devoted  to  God  ;  just 
as  they  were  under  the  former  economy.  And  as  they  were  thus 
considered  to  he  ayia,  a  hoi//  seed,  separated  from  paganism,  and 
consecrated  to  God;  how  can  we  reasonably  doubt  that  they  had 
the  sign  of  consecration  put  upon  them  ?  Whitby  states  the  ar- 
gument from  this  text  thus  :  "  If  the  holt/  seed  among  the  Jews  were 
to  be  circumcised,  and  be  made  federally  holy  by  receiving  the 
sign  of  the  covenant  and  being  admitted  into  the  number  of  God's 
people,  because  they  were  born  in  sanctity,  or  were  seminally  holy ; 
for  the  root  being  holy  so  are  the  branches  ;  then,  by  like  reason, 
the  holy  seed  of  Christians  ought  to  be  admitted  to  baptism,  the 
sign  of  the  Christian  covenant,  and  so  to  be  entered  into  the  society 
of  the  Christian  church." 

On  the  whole,  my  conclusion  is,  that  although  the  word  ayia. 
does  not  properly  mean  baptized,  it  denotes  that  the  children 
referred  to  were  in  such  a  condition,  or  were  regarded  as  standing 
in  such  a  relation  to  God  and  his  people,  that  the  appointed  sign 
of  consecration  to  God  was  of  course  to  be  applied  to  them.  Or 
to  express  it  differently ;  the  word  ayia  does  not  by  itself  mean, 
and  is  not  to  be  rendered,  subjects  of  baptism.  But  it  signifies 
that  the  children,  to  whom  it  was  applied,  were  to  be  regarded  as 
Christian  children,  a  holy  seed,  separated  from  the  heathen,  con- 
secrated to  God,  and  to  be  received  and  treated  as  such  by  the 
Christian  community.  The  word  ayia,  by  itself,  can  signify  no 
more  than  this.  But  if  the  children  were  thus  regarded  as  a  holy, 
consecrated  seed,  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  they  received  the 
sign  of  this.  And  the  supposition  of  their  being  devoted  to  God 
by  baptism  most  satisfactorily  accounts  for  the  Apostle's  calling 
them  ciyia,  holy,  or  consecrated  children. 


LECTURE  CXV. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.   COLLATERAL  EVIDENCE. 

In  order  to  give  simplicity  and  unity  to  my  reasoning  on  the 
subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  I  have  made  it  rest  chiefly  on  the 
inquiry,  how  the  apostles  must  have  understood  the  commission 
they  received  from  Christ,  to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations.  I 
have  considered  the  point  at  issue  as  relating  to  the  just  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture.  And  as  the  passage  which  records  the  com- 
mission, does  not  explicitly  inform  us  whether  infant  children  were 
meant  to  be  included  or  not ;  I  have  thought  it  indispensable  to 
consider  what  there  was  in  the  circumstances  of  the  apostles,  as 
native  Jews,  especially  in  their  usages  respecting  children,  which 
would  be  likely  to  influence  them  in  their  understanding  of  such 
a  commission  from  one,  who  was  born  and  educated  in  the  same 
community  with  them.  I  have  thought  it  important  also  to 
inquire,  whether  there  was  anything  in  the  previous  instructions 
of  Clirist,  or  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  afterwards,  which 
could  help  to  show  in  what  light  they  regarded  httle  children. 
And  here  we  have  found,  that  Christ,  exactly  in  accordance  with 
the  principle  which  was  established  by  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  represented  httle  children,  as  entitled  in  a 
peculiar  sense  to  the  privileges  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  and 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  represented  it  as  a  fact,  generally  known 
and  acknowledged,  that  the  children  of  behevers  were  a  holi/  seed, 
consecrated  to  God,  and  admitted  to  special  privileges  in  the 
Christian  community.    And  if  this  was  the  case,  we  have  supposed 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  385 

it  would  follow  of  course,  that  baptism,  the  sign  of  such  consecra- 
tion to  God,  and  of  such  a  relation  to  the  Christian  community, 
was  administered  to  them.  Every  consideration  of  this  kind  will 
be  strengthened,  and  every  such  probable  conclusion  confirmed, 
by  the  historical  proof  which  will  by  and  by  be  produced,  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  actually  practised  in  the  early  Christian 
churches.  This  proof  might  indeed  have  been  exhibited  before 
any  other  consideration  ;  and  this  method  might  have  been 
attended  with  some  important  advantages.  But  it  must  be 
remembered,  that,  according  to  our  belief,  there  were  obvious 
considerations,  which  influenced  the  apostles  and  early  Christians 
to  practise  Infant  Baptism.  Now  what  can  be  more  natural  than 
for  us  first  of  all  to  inquire,  what  those  considerations  were  ;  and 
afterwards  to  present  the  evidence  of  the  fact,  that  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  practised  in  the  early  Christian  church  ?  In  this  way 
we  at  length  become  fully  satisfied,  that  the  considerations  which 
operated  upon  the  minds  of  the  apostles,  did  actually  produce  the 
effect  which  we  have  supposed.  According  to  our  views,  they 
were  the  men  who  introduced  the  baptism  of  infants  as  a  Christian 
ordinance  ;  of  course  they  could  not  have  been  influenced  in  their 
judgment  as  we  are,  by  the  consideration,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  a  practice  already  existing.  They  must  have  been  influenced 
in  another  way.  The  method  which  I  have  chosen  is,  first,  to 
inquire  into  the  circumstances  and  usages  of  the  apostles,  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  community,  and  to  satisfy  ourselves,  as  far  as 
may  be,  what  were  the  considerations,  which  would  naturally  lead 
them  to  understand  their  commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize^  as 
including  children;  next,  to  attend  to  anything  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  which  has  an  obvious  correspondence  with  the 
supposition,  that  Infant  Baptism  Avas  practised  by  the  apostles ; 
and  finally  to  exhibit  the  proof,  that  baptism  Avas  in  fact  apphed  to 
children  in  the  early  Christian  churches.  This  order  appears  best 
suited  to  present  the  whole  subject  in  a  clear  light,  and  to  make  a 
just  impression  on  the  minds  of  Christians. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  argument  from  Ecclesiastical  History, 
I  shall  advert  to  three  additional  considerations  as  collateral  proof. 

VOL.  III.  33 


386  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

First.  The  manner  in  u'hich  the  Apostle  requires  children  to  he 
educated.  In  Ephesians  6:  4,  Christian  parents  are  required  to 
bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 
This  is  the  general  precept.  Others  more  particular,  but  of 
the  same  import,  might  be  cited.  According  to  apostolic  direc- 
tion, the  children  of  behevers  were,  from  their  earliest  years,  to  be 
instructed  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  They  -were 
to  have  the  doctrines  and  precepts,  the  invitations  and  promises, 
the  warnings  and  threats  of  God's  word,  clearly  set  before  them, 
and  earnestly  inculcated  upon  them.  They  were  to  be  considered 
and  treated  as  scholars,  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  there 
to  be  brought  under  the  influence  of  faithful  and  pious  instruction ; 
so  that,  through  the  divine  blessing,  their  minds  might  be  enlight- 
ened, and  their  affections  and  actions  conformed  to  the  principles 
of  Christianity.  In  a  word,  their  education  was  to  be  conducted 
with  a  direct  view  to  their  being  made  followers  of  Christ,  and 
active  members  of  his  spiritual  kingdom.  Now  the  precepts  of 
the  New  Testament,  requiring  all  this  instruction  and  discipline  of 
children,  perfectly  agree  with  the  ^^ew  we  have  taken  of  their 
state.  If  God  is  pleased  to  place  our  children  in  such  a  near 
relation  to  us,  and  if  he  requires  us  to  consecrate  them  to  him, 
and  to  put  upon  them  the  sign  of  consecration,  the  mark  of  disci- 
pleship,  that  is,  the  mark  of  their  being  placed,  as  young  disciples 
or  learners,  in  the  school  of  Christ ;  it  becomes  perfectly  suitable, 
that  he  should  require  us  to  treat  them  with  all  this  affection  and 
care,  and  so  to  endeavor  to  bring  them  up  for  God.  And  it  is 
true  not  only  that  these  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  pointing 
out  the  duty  of  parents,  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doctrine 
we  maintain,  but  that  they  derive  additional  importance  from  this 
doctrine.  If,  according  to  divine  appointment,  we  publicly  dedi- 
cate our  children  to  God  by  a  solemn  religious  rite,  and  thus 
bring  them  into  a  special  relation  to  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
secure  to  them  a  prospect  of  special  blessings ;  we  must  surely 
feel,  that  we  are  under  strong  obligations  to  cherish  a  tender  affec- 
tion for  them,  and  to  labor,  by  all  the  methods  of  a  wise  Christian 
discipline,  to  make  them  what  the  privileges  of  their  birth  and  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  387 

commands  of  God  reqmre  them  to  be.  So  the  divme  precept 
given  by  Moses,  that  parents  should  teach  their  children  diligently 
the  things  of  religion,  laboring  to  inculcate  them  morning  and 
evenhig,  and  all  the  hours  of  the  day,  became  specially  suitable, 
and  acquired  a  special  force,  on  account  of  their  children  hav- 
ing been  publicly  devoted  to  God,  and  marked  as  his,  by  circum- 
cision. 

These  observations  are  not  meant  to  imply,  that  those  who  do 
not  devote  their  children  to  God  by  baptism,  may  not  feel  their 
obligation  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord ;  but  that  those,  who  practise  Infant  Baptism,  will  find 
themselves  drawn  to  this  duty  by  a  special  obligation,  and  will  be 
likely  to  perceive  with  additional  clearness,  and  to  feel  with  addi- 
tional force,  the  propriety  and  importance  of  giving  them  a  reli- 
gious education.  Now  the  circumstance,  that  Infant  Baptism, 
considered  as  a  divine  institution,  has  such  an  obvious  and  striking 
correspondence  with  those  precepts  which  point  out  the  duty  of 
parents,  and  invests  those  precepts  with  new  force,  is  a  circum- 
stance in  fiivor  of  Infant  Baptism.  Whereas,  if  the  contrary 
■were  fact ;  that  is,  if  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  were  calcu- 
lated to  diminish  in  our  view  the  importance  of  a  religious  educa- 
tion, or  to  render  us  less  attentive  to  the  duty ;  if,  while  holding 
to  Infant  Baptism,  we  felt  a  less  powerful  motive,  than  we  other- 
wise should,  to  bring  up  our  children  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord  ;  this  certainly  would  be  a  consideration  of  no 
small  weight  against  it.  Because  it  is  the  manifest  design  of  all 
the  positive  institutions  of  religion,  to  have  an  effect  upon  our 
minds  in  favor  of  its  moral  precepts,  and  to  excite  us  to  the  per- 
formance of  our  duty. 

The  second  consideration  referred  to  is,  tliat  the  New  Testament 
does  not  contain  any  cxyress  mention  of  Infant  Baptism.  This 
circumstance  has  already  been  noticed  in  another  connection.  But 
I  wish  to  dwell  upon  it  more  particularly  here,  as  I  think  it  must 
appear  to  be  a  circumstance  in  favor  of  our  doctrme. 

I  can  by  no  means  admit,  as  I  intimated  in  a  previous  Lecture, 
that  the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  anything  which  fairly 


388  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

implies  Infant  Baptism.  Still  it  is  evident  that  Infant  Baptism  is 
not  introduced  as  a  subject  of  particular  discussion  in  the  New 
Testament ;  that  it  is  neither  explicitly  enjoined  nor  prohibited ; 
and  that  neither  the  practice  of  baptizing  children  nor  the  absence 
of  such  a  practice  is  expressly  mentioned. 

But  this  fact  cannot  be  urged  as  an  argument  against  Infant 
Baptism,  because,  as  circumstances  were,  there  was  no  occasion  to 
enjoin  it,  and  no  occasion  to  discuss  the  subject,  or  even  to  name 
it.  The  circumstances  referred  to  have  already  been  brought  to 
view.  The  Jews  had  always  been  accustomed  to  have  their 
children  consecrated  to  God  by  the  same  rite  as  was  appointed 
originally  for  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  afterwards  for  all  men 
from  among  the  gentiles,  who  should  become  proselytes  to  the 
true  religion.  They  had  always  been  accustomed  to  see  children 
treated  as  a  Jioly  seed,  and  members  of  the  society  of  God's 
people.  They  had  never  heard  the  propriety  of  this  questioned, 
and  had  never  been  acquainted  with  a  contrary  practice.  In  these 
circumstances,  it  was,  I  apprehend  a  matter  of  course,  that  they 
should  understand  the  divine  appointment  of  baptism  for  Christian 
proselytes,  as  including  their  cJdldren.  And  it  being  a  matter  of 
course  that  they  should  so  understand  the  subject,  there  was  not 
the  least  necessity  that  the  baptism  of  children  should  be  expressly 
required,  or  even  mentioned. 

To  be  perfectly  satisfied  on  this  subject,  just  look  at  the  manner 
in  which  circumcision  is  spoken  of,  Acts  15:  1.  Certain  Juda- 
izing  Christians  came  from  Judea  to  Antioch,  and  said  to  the 
brethren  there,  "  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  Why  did  they  not  express  all  that 
they  meant,  and  say,  "  Except  ye  and  ^our  children  be  circum- 
cised, ye  cannot  be  saved  ?  "  And  afterwards,  v.  10,  when  Peter 
spoke  in  opposition  to  the  Judaizing  Christians  in  regard  to  the 
same  subject,  and  said,  "  Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon 
the  neck  of  the  disciples,'"  —  that  is,  Whi/  do  ye  require  the  dis- 
ciples to  be  circumcised?  Why  did  he  not  in  so  many  Avords 
object  to  laying  this  burdensome  rite  upon  the  disciples  and  their 
children?     The  answer  to  both  questions  is  the  same.     There 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  389 

was  no  occasion  for  the  mention  of  children,  because  it  was  per- 
fectly understood  bj  all,  that  children  were  to  be  included  with 
their  parents.  It  had  always  been  so.  And  who  could  need  to 
be  informed,  that  it  was  to  be  so  still  ?  The  same  I  think  must 
have  been  the  case,  when  baptism  was  appointed,  instead  of  cir- 
CTimcision,  as  the  mark  to  be  put  upon  the  people  of  God.  The 
apostles  and  Jewish  Christians  had  ahvays  been  accustomed  to 
consider  children,  as  united  with  their  parents,  as  belonging  to 
the  same  religious  community,  and  as  entitled  to  the  same  mark 
of  consecration  to  God.  They  would  understand  that  this  prac- 
tice of  applying  the  sign  of  consecration  to  children,  as  well  as 
parents,  would  be  continued  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
because  the  reasons  for  it  continued,  and  because  nothing  was 
said  or  done  by  the  Author  of  the  new  dispensation  to  show  that 
there  was  to  be  any  alteration  in  this  respect.  So  that  it  cannot 
be  regarded  as  anything  strange,  that  children  are  not  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  command  to  baptize,  or  in  the  accounts  of 
baptisms  contained  in  the  New  Testament.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  no  express  declaration  on  this  subject  is  found  in  the  writings 
of  the  early  Christian  fathers  ;  as  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
practice  had  ever  been  objected  to,  or  had  ever  occasioned  any 
controversy.  This  silence  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  early 
fathers  respecting  the  baptism  of  children,  is  analogous  to  the 
fact,  that  the  circumcision  of  children  on  the  eighth  day  is  scarcely 
mentioned  for  a  thousand  years  before  Christ.  Now  as  we  can 
satisfactorily  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  New  Testament  con- 
tains no  express  mention  of  Infant  Baptism,  on  the  supposition 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  admitted  and  practised  by  all  Christians, 
without  any  controversy ;  this  fact  cannot  surely  be  considered  as 
affording  an  argument  against  Infant  Baptism. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  fact  that  there  is  no  command  prohi- 
Uting  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  that  there  are  no  such 
remarks  as  would  naturally  arise  from  the  absence  of  the  practice, 
is  an  important  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  As  it 
had  always  been  the  custom  of  God's  people  from  the  time  of 
Abraham,  to  consecrate  their  children  to  God,  to  put  upon  them 

33* 


390  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  admit  them  as  belonging  to  their 
holy  community;  if  Christ  had  inteaded  to  make  any  alteration 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  regarded  and 
treated,  we  should  suppose  that  he  would  have  mentioned  such 
alteration ;  and  that,  when  he  commanded  his  apostles  to  prose- 
lyte and  baptize  all  nations,  he  would  have  expressly  informed 
them,  that  under  the  new  dispensation  children  were  not  meant 
to  be  included. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  greater  consequence  still.     All  the 
Jews,  those  who  embraced  Christianity,  and  those  who  rejected  it, 
had  always  been  accustomed  to  consider  their  children  as  a  holy 
seed,  consecrated  to  God,  and  to  see  them  receive  the  seal  of 
God's  covenant.     Now  if  Christianity  had  cut  them  oflf  from  this 
relation  to  God,  and  had  deprived  them  of  the  sign  of  being 
consecrated  to  him,  and  had  treated  them  as  having  no  part  or 
lot  Avith  God's   people ;    can  we  think   that  such   a  change   as 
this  could  have  been  made  without  occasioning  animadversion  ? 
Can  it  be  that  neither  the  friends  nor  the  enemies  of  Christ  would 
have  made  any  complaint  ?     The  unbelieving  Jews,  and  even 
some  who  professed  to  believe,  were  ready  enough  to  complain  of 
innovation,  and  of  everything  in  Christianity,  which  implied  the 
surrender  of  what  belonged  to  the  Jewish  religion.     How  ear- 
nestly, for  instance,  did  they  object  to  giving  up  circumcision, 
although  baptism  was  introduced  in  its  place,  as  a  mark  of  disci- 
pleship?     But  in  consequence  of  the  ardent  aifection  which,  as 
men,  especially  as  Israelites,  they  cherished  for  their  offspring, 
they  must  have  felt  a  much  stronger  objection  to  depriving  them 
wholly  of  the  privilege  of  being  consecrated  to  God  by  any  reli- 
gious rite,  and  to  excluding  them  wholly  from  that  sacred  relation 
which  they  had  always  sustained  to  the  church  of  God,  than  to  a 
change  merely  in  the  outward  rite.     But,  with  all  their  disposition 
to  complain,  what  complaints  did  they  ever  make  of  Christ  or  the 
apostles,  for  treating  children  with  less  regard,  than  had  been 
exercised  towards  them  before  ?     There  is  not  the  least  appear- 
ance of  there  having  ever  been  any  complaint  or  any  controversy 
on  this  subject  in  the  time  of  Christ,  or  liis  apostles,  or  in  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  391 

period  succeeding.  Now  I  cannot  but  regard  this  as  unaccount- 
able, on  the  supposition  that  baptism,  the  initiatory  sign  appointed 
by  Christ  for  his  disciples,  had  been  withheld  from  their  children. 
Of  all  the  subjects  of  complaint,  this  must  have  been  first 
among  those  Jews  who  rejected  Christianity,  and  even  among 
those  who  embraced  it.  And  as  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such 
complaint,  and  no  command  or  intimation  respecting  children 
which  could  have  occasioned  such  a  complaint ;  in  a  word,  as 
there  is  silence  among  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
among  the  early  fathers,  respecting  any  change  in  the  standing 
or  privileges  of  children  ;  we  must  conclude  that  no  change  took 
place,  and  that  they  were  in  substance  regarded  and  treated  by 
the  teachers  of  Christianity,  as  they  had  been  by  the  people  of 
God  before. 

The  third  consideration  referred  to  is,  that  Infant  Baptism^ 
when  apprehended  correctly,  must  he  agreeable  to  the  best  feelings 
of  pious  parents  respecting  their  infant  offspring.  This  is  not 
produced  as  an  independent  argument.  But  after  having  at- 
tended to  the  principal  reasons  which  support  the  doctrine  of 
Infant  Baptism,  it  must  be  a  gratification  to  find,  that  the  doc- 
trine corresponds  with  our  purest  and  best  affections.  It  would, 
on  the  contrary,  be  a  serious  difficulty  in  our  way,  and  would 
lead  us  to  question  the  soundness  of  our  arguments,  if  the  most 
tender  and  pious  dispositions  of  our  hearts  were  found  in  array 
against  the  practice  for  which  we  plead.  The  laws  and  institu- 
tions of  reUgion  are  all  intended  to  exercise  and  improve  our 
benevolent  and  pious  affections.  And  when  we  perceive  in  themi 
an  obvious  fitness  to  do  this,  we  cannot  but  consider  it  an  argu- 
ment in  their  favor.  How  common  is  it,  for  example,  to  illustrate 
and  enforce  the  oliligation  of  men  to  pray,  and  to  attend  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  from  the  consideration,  that  these  duties  perfectly 
agree  with  our  most  devout  feehngs,  and  are  suited  to  improve 
them.  Indeed  how  often  do  we  satisfy  ourselves  that  it  is  our 
duty  to  perform  certaui  things,  not  expressly  enjoined  by  the 
word  of  God,  because  we  are  drawn  to  them  by  those  affections 
which  we  consider  to  be  right.     But  if  we  find  that  any  practice 


^92  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

stands  in  opposition  not  only  to  our  natural  affections,  but  to 
the  feelings  of  benevolence  ;  we  are  disinclined  to  believe  that 
it  could  ever  have  been  appointed  by  God.  Come  then  to  the 
subject  now  before  us.  And  what  pious  parent,  rightly  appre- 
hending the  nature  and  design  of  Infant  Baptism,  would  not 
acknowledge  it  to  be  a  benevolent  appointment  of  God?  "Who 
would  not  be  gratified  to  find  such  a  doctrine,  as  that  of  Infant 
Baptism,  true  ?  Who  would  not  deem  it  a  privilege  to  be  per- 
mitted to  perform  such  a  duty?  And  who  would  not  regard 
it  as  a  subject  of  heartfelt  grief,  to  be  deprived  of  such  a  privi- 
lege ?  It  must  surely  be  the  wish  of  pious  parents  to  give  up 
their  children  to  God ;  and  to  do  this  in  the  temple  of  God, 
where  the  prayers  of  many  will  ascend  with  their  own  to  the 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  in  behalf  of  their  children.  PubUcly 
to  apply  to  them  a  sacred  rite  which  marks  them  for  God  ;  which 
signifies  that  they  are  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  in  the 
nursery  of  the  church ;  that  they  are  to  enjoy  faithful  parental 
instruction,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel^  and  the  affections  and 
prayers  of  Christians,  and  that  they  are  to  come  under  the 
influence  of  a  divine  economy,  fraught  with  the  most  gracious 
promises,  and  the  most  precious  blessings  ;  —  to  apply  to  children 
a  sacred  rite  of  such  import,  must  be  inexpressibly  delightful 
to  godly  parents.  If  then  such  parents  give  up  Infant  Baptism, 
they  give  up  a  privilege,  which  I  should  think  they  would 
regard  as  of  more  value  to  their  children,  than  all  the  riches 
of  the  world.  Now  I  cannot  but  deplore  a  mistake,  which 
leads  parents  to  act  against  those  sincere  and  devout  affections, 
which  God  requires  them  to  cherish,  and  which  rehgion,  with 
all  its  observances,  is  designed  to  improve.  Pious  parents,  I 
repeat  it,  who  rightly  apprehend  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism, 
cannot  but  wish  it  true.  And  it  would  seem  to  me  that  their 
first  inquiry  must  be,  whether  they  may  be  permitted  thus  to 
devote  their  dear  offspring  to  God,  and  to  apply  to  them  the  seal 
of  his  gracious  covenant.  If  nothing  is  found  to  forbid  their 
doing  this ;  especially,  if  they  have  reason,  from  the  word  and 
providence  of  God,  to  believe  that  he  would  approve  it ;  I  should 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  393 

suppose  they  would  embrace  such  a  privilege  with  the  sincerest 
gratitude  and  joy,  and  hasten  to  confer  such  a  blessing  upon  their 
children.  That  it  is  a  privilege  and  a  blessing  will  be  made  still 
more  evident,  by  the  remarks  I  shall  offer  in  another  place  on  the 
utility  of  Infant  Baptism. 


LECTURE    CXVI. 


INFANT   BAPTISM   PROVED   FROM   ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

I  NOW  proceed  to  the  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  from 
JScclesiastical  History. 

The  testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History  on  this  subject  is  just 
such  as  we  should  expect,  on  the  supposition  that  Infant  Baptism 
was,  from  the  beginning,  universally  regarded  as  a  Christian  insti- 
tution. The  earliest  Christian  fathers  had  little  or  no  occasion  to 
enter  on  a  particular  discussion  of  the  subject,  or  even  to  make 
any  express  mention  of  it.  Accordingly  we  find  in  the  writers, 
who  next  succeeded  the  apostles,  only  allusions  to  Infant  Baptism. 
These  allusions,  however,  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  they  cannot 
well  be  accounted  for  without  supposing  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  the  uniform  practice.  But  the  fathers,  who  wrote  in  the  fol- 
lowing ages,  were  more  and  more  particular  and  explicit  in  their 
testimony. 

My  intention  is  only  to  make  citations  sufficient  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  argument ;  referring  you  to  Wall's  History  of 
Infant  Baptism,  and  other  works,  where  the  subject  is  treated  at 
full  length. 

A  citation  has  commonly  been  made  from  the  apology  of  Justin 
Martyr,  written  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Among 
those  who  were  members  of  the  church,  he  says,  there  were  many 
of  both  sexes,  some  sixty,  and  some  seventy  j^ears  old,  who  were 
made  disciples  to  Christ,  «x  naidcov,  from  their  infancy  or 
childhood.     The  word  he  uses  is  the  same  as  was  used  in  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  395 

final  commission  given  to  the  apostles  to  go  and  proselyte  and 
bajttize  all  nations  ;  i^a&ijTsv&rjaav,  iJiey  were  jyroselyted,  or  made 
disciples.  It  is,  I  think,  altogether  probable  and  beyond  any 
reasonable  doubt,  that  Justin  meant  in  this  place  to  speak  of  those 
who  were  made  disciples,  or  introduced  into  the  school  of  Christ 
by  baptism,  when  they  were  infants. 

IrenjBus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  John,  was 
born  near  the  close  of  the  first  century.  He  says ;  "  Christ  came 
to  save  all  persons,  who  by  him  are  born  again  unto  God,  (renas- 
cunter  in  Deum,  infants  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths, 
and  elder  persons)."  Wall  and  Schroeckh,  and  other  writers  of 
the  first  ability,  consider  -the  word,  renasci,  in  the  writings  of 
Irenaeus  and  Justin,  as  signifying  baptism.  "Any  man,"  says 
Wall,  "  who  has  been  at  all  conversant  in  the  fathers,  —  will  be 
satisfied  that  they  as  constantly  meant  baptized,  by  the  word 
regenerated  or  born  again,  as  we  mean  the  same  by  the  word 
CJiristetied.'^  In  this  argument  we  are  not  concerned  at  all  with 
the  opinions  entertained  by  Irenaeus  as  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism. 
Our  only  inquiry  is,  whether  it  appears  from  his  writings,  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  the  prevailing  practice.  The  passage  above 
cited  is  with  good  reason  supposed  to  contain  proof  of  this. 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian  must  be  considered  with  special 
care.  He  wrote  about  a  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  and 
was  in  many  respects  a  Stoic,  rather  than  a  Christian.  But  the 
strange  opinions  which  he  entertained,  as  a  Montanist,  have  nothing 
to  do  with  his  testimony  as  to  facts ;  especially  as  to  facts  which 
he  does  not  cite  in  support  of  his  peculiar  opinions ;  and  most  of 
all  as  to  facts  against  which  he  objects,  and  which  he  attacks  with 
severity.  In  regard  to  such  facts,  his  testimony  is  entitled  to  full 
credit.  For  what  motive  could  he  possibly  have  to  assert  things, 
which  stood  in  the  way  of  his  own  sectarian  views,  unless  those 
things  actually  existed  ?  Would  any  author,  especially  one  who 
wished  to  set  himself  up  as  the  head  of  a  sect,  speak  of  the  exis- 
tence of  a  practice  which  he  disapproved,  and  which  was  directly 
opposed  to  his  favorite  scheme,  when  at  the  same  time  he  was 
aware  that  no  such  practice  existed  ?     It  is  futile  to  say,  that  Ter- 


896  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

tullian  was  an  enthusiast.  Was  he  an  enthusiast  in  favor  of 
Infant  Baptism  ?  And  were  the  facts  to  which  he  alludes,  of  such 
a  nature,  that  speaking  of  them  as  he  did  could  in  any  way  tend 
to  justify  him  in  his  enthusiastic  notions  ?  Could  he  have  had  any 
motive  whatever  to  treat  Infant  Baptism  aa  he  did,  unless  he,  and 
those  for  whom  he  wrote,  knew  that  it  was  a  common  practice  ? 

The  passage  in  TertulHan's  treatise  De  Baptismo,  chap.  18,  is 
very  important,  though  it  is  attended  with  difficulties,  and  has 
been  a  subject  of  no  small  controversy.  The  following  is  a 
translation. 

"  But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  baptism,  should  know, 
that  it  is  not  to  be  given  rashly.  '  Grive  to  every  one  that  asketh 
thee, '  has  its  proper  subject,  and  relates  to  almsgiving.  But 
that  command  is  rather  to  be  regarded ;  Give  not  that  tvhich  is 
holy  to  dogs  J  neither  cast  your  pearls  before  swine;  and.  Lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  he  partaker  of  other  merC% 
sins.  Therefore  according  to  every  person's  condition  and  dis- 
position, and  age  also,  the  delay  of  baptism  is  more  profitable, 
especially  as  to  httle  children.  For  why  is  it  necessary  that  the 
sponsors  should  incur  danger  ?  For  they  may  either  fail  of  their 
promises  by  death,  or  may  be  disappointed  by  a  child's  proving 
to  be  of  a  wicked  disposition.  Our  Lord  says  indeed,  forbid  them 
not  to  come  to  me.  Let  them  come  then,  when  they  are  grown  up  ; 
let  them  come  when  they  understand ;  let  them  come,  when  they 
are  taught  whither  they  are  to  come  ;  let  them  become  Christians 
when  they  are  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  should  their  innocent 
age  make  haste  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin  ?  Men  act  more  cau- 
tiously in  temporal  concerns.  Worldly  substance  is  not  committed 
to  those,  to  whom  divine  things  are  intrusted.  Let  them  know 
how  to  ask  for  salvation,  that  you  may  seem  to  give  to  him  that 
asketh." 

"  It  is  for  a  reason  of  no  less  importance,  that  unmarried  per- 
sons, both  those  who  were  never  married,  and  those  who  have 
been  deprived  of  their  partners,  should,  on  account  of  their  ex- 
posure to  temptation,  be  kept  waiting,  till  they  are  either  married, 
or  confirmed  in  a  habit  of  chaste  single  life.     They  who  under- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  397 

stand  the  importance  of  baptism,  will  be  more  afraid  of  hastening 
to  receive  it,  than  of  delay :  an  entire   faith  secures  salvation." 
An  attentive  examination  of  this  passage  will  make  the  following 
things  evident. 

1.  The  object  of  Tertullian  is,  to  caution  the  Christian  church 
against  a  hasty,  premature,  rash  administration  of  the  x-ite  of 
baptism: — non  temere  credendum  esse,  —  it  is  not  to  be  rashly 
administered.  He  meets  the  objections  which  some  might  make 
to  delaying  the  ordinance,  or  to  declining  to  administer  it,  by 
appealing  to  the  Scriptures ;  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to  the 
dogs  ;  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  7nan,  etc. 

2.  He  urges  the  delay  of  baptism  in  regard  to  several  sorts  of 
persons,  especially  in  regard  to  infants.  "  A  delay  of  baptism," 
he  says,  "  is  more  profitable  according  to  every  one's  condition, 
disposition,  or  age,  but  especially  in  regard  to  little  ones,  parvulos, 
\nai8ia,  |3^t'g)e«.]  For  what  necessity  is  there  that  the  sponsors 
should  incur  danger?  For  they  may  fail  of  their  promises  by 
reason  of  mortality,  or  be  disappointed  by  the  springing  up  of  a 
bad  disposition. " 

The  argument  is  plainly  this,  "  The  httle  ones  especially 
(praecipue)  ought  to  have  their  baptism  delayed."  Why? 
because  a  bad  disposition  may  spring  up,  and  the  sponsors,  (those 
who  offered  them  up  in  baptism,  and  became  responsible  for  their 
religious  education,  and  their  good  behavior,)  be  thus  disappointed 
and  fail  of  performing  their  engagements.  The  whole  argument 
clearly  shows,  from  its  very  nature,  that  infants  must  be  intended 
by  parvidos.  If  not,  why  did  they  need  sjwyisors  ?  They  could 
engage  for  themselves.  Moreover  if  adults  were  intended,  then 
their  disposition  would  have  already  sprung  up,  and  developed 
itself;  and  what  danger  would  there  have  been  of  the  disappoint- 
ment which  Tertullian  fears  ? 

The  whole  passage,  by  the  most  certain  implication,  shows  that 
the  "  Uttle  ones  "  (parvulos)  where  such  as  had  not  developed 
their  disposition,  and  such  as  did  not  and  could  not  stand  sponsers 
for  themselves.     Now  Tertullian   cautioned  the  sponsors  not  to 

VOL.  ni.  B4 


398  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

take  such  engagements  upon  themselves,  as  all  their  efforts  to 
fulfil  them  might  be  frustrated. 

3.  This  passage  clearly  shows,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  com- 
monly practised  at  the  time  when  Tertulhan  lived,  that  is,  a 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles. 

This  appears  from  the  reasoning.  He  notices  a  text  which  was 
doubtless  appealed  to  by  those  who  were  accustomed  to  baptize 
their  children.  Our  Lord  says  indeed, /oriiVZ  them  (parvulos)  not 
to  come  unto  me.  The  force  of  this  he  feels  it  necessary  to  parry. 
"  Let  them  come,  then,"  he  says,  "  when  they  are  grown  up  :  let 
them  come  when  they  learn  :  [let  them  come]  when  they  are 
taught  whither  they  are  coming."  All  this  shows  beyond  any 
reasonable  doubt,  that  TertuUian  was  attacking  the  custom  of 
bringing  children  to  be  baptized  hffore  they  were  grown  up,  or 
had  learned,  or  had  been  taught  whither  they  were  to  come  in 
baptism ;  that  is,  that  he  was  attacking  the  custom  of  having  them 
baptized  in  an  infantile  state.  This  must  be  admitted,  or  there  is 
no  sense  in  the  passage.  And  what  follows  makes  it,  if  possible, 
still  more  clear  that  he  was  opposing  such  a  custom. 

"  Let  them  become  Clmstians,''^  he  says,  "  when  they  are  able 
to  knoAv  Christ.  "  Their  being  devoted  to  Christ  in  baptism  he 
represents  as  their  becoming  Christians ;  and  he  objects  to  their 
becoming  Christians  at  an  age,  when  they  were  incapable  of  know- 
ing Christ.  Again  he  says :  "  Why  should  those  who  are  of  an 
age  that  is  innocent,  be  eager  for  remission  of  sins  ?  "  That  is, 
why  should  those  who  are  so  young  as  to  be  incapable  of  sinning, 
be  eager  to  obtain  forgiveness  ?  —  as  he  thought  was  done  by 
baptism. 

With  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  Tertullian's  religious 
opinions  we  have,  I  have  said,  no  concern  here.  Our  only  inquiry 
is,  whether  it  is  implied  in  the  passage  above  quoted  from  his 
writings,  that  it  was  in  his  day  the  prevailing  custom  to  baptize 
little  children.  That  there  was  such  a  custom  is  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  he  made  opposition  against  it  as  actually  existing. 

He  goes  on  with  his  objection  against  the  practice  of  Lifant 
Baptism.     "  Men  act  with  more  caution,"  he  says,"  in  temporal 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  399 

matters.  Worldly  substance  is  not  committed  to  those,  to  whom 
divine  things  are  entrusted. "  That  is,  httle  children,  as  all  agree, 
are  not  to  be  entrusted  with  the  care  of  worldly  substance ;  and 
yet  you  entrust  them  with  divine  things,  which  are  so  much  more 
important. 

Still,  not  content  with  all  this,  he  repeats  an  idea  which  he  had 
before  suggested.  "  Let  them  know  how  to  seek  for  salvation, 
that  you  may  appear  to  give  to  them  who  ask."  That  is ;  you 
have  been  accustomed  to  give  baptism  to  those  who  could  not 
ask  for  it.  Discontinue  this  practice  ;  and  give  baptism  to  those 
only  who  are  capable  of  requesting  it  for  themselves. 

He  finally  urges  delay  in  administering  baptism  to  unmarried 
persons,  on  account  of  their  being  peculiarly  exposed  to  temp- 
tation. He  does  not  forbid  baptism  in  their  case,  but  urges  the 
postponement  of  it,  until  they  are  either  married,  or  established 
in  habits  of  continence.  He  says  ;  "  If  any  understand  the  weight 
of  baptismal  obligations,  they  will  be  more  fearful  about  taking 
them,  than  about  putting  them  off." 

From  this  famous,  singular,  and  controverted  passage  in  Tertul- 
lian,  it  is  then  perfectly  clear,  that  there  was  in  his  day  a  practice 
of  baptizing  infants,  that  is,  those  who  had,  and  could  have,  no 
knowledge  of  Christ ;  that  he  was  himself  strongly  opposed  to  the 
practice  ;  and  that  he  was  opposed  because  he  thought  that,  while 
baptism  secured  the  forgiveness  of  all  the  sins  previously  commit- 
ted, the  sins  committed  after  baptism  exposed  the  soul  to  the 
utmost  peril.  It  was  on  this  account  that  he  would  have  baptism 
delayed  in  respect  to  all  those  who  would  be  particularly  liable  to 
temptation  and  to  sin,  —  which  he  considered  to  be  the  case  with 
those  who  were  unmarried,  and  those  who  were  in  infancy.  This 
was  at  the  bottom  of  his  zeal  for  delaying  baptism  in  regard  to 
infants  and  others.  And  it  all  implies  that  the  practice  against 
"which  he  argued,  was  common.  Otherwise,  why  did  he  so  earn- 
estly oppose  it  ? 

The  reasoning  of  Tertullian  against  the  baptism  of  unmarried 
persons,  is,  you  have  seen,  the  same  as  against  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants ;  namely,  that  they  are  exposed  to  temptation,  and  are  in 


400  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

special  danger  of  falling  into  sin.  But  if  Chrstiau  rites  are  to  be 
deferred  until  men  are  free  from  temptation  and  the  danger  of 
sin  ;  when  are  they  to  be  performed  ? 

It  should  be  specially  noted,  that  TertuUian  does  not  appeal  to 
any  usage  of  the  church,  or  of  any  part  of  the  church,  from  the 
apostles'  day  to  his,  in  support  of  his  opinions  against  Infant 
Baptism.  Now  if  it  had  not  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the 
Christian  church  from  the  beginning,  to  baptize  infants,  how  easy 
would  it  have  been  for  him  to  say  so,  and  to  represent  Infant  Bap- 
tism as  a  dangerous  innovation,  and  thus  to  put  it  down  at  once. 
He  showed  great  zeal  against  the  practice  ;  and  if  he  could  have 
opposed  it  by  asserting  that  it  was  a  practice  unknown  in  the  early 
Christian  churches  ;  could  he  have  failed  of  using  such  an  argu- 
ment? 

Suppose  that  TertuUian  had  set  himself  to  argue  on  the  other 
side  in  the  same  manner  as  on  this  ;  suppose  he  had  taken  great 
pains  to  point  out  the  evils  of  neglecting  or  delaying  Infant  Bap- 
tism, and  had  earnestly  expostulated  with  those  who  exposed  them- 
selves and  others  to  those  evils  ;  would  it  not  be  implied,  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  neglected  or  delayed  in  his  day  ?  And  sup- 
pose he  had  shown  great  zeal  to  support  Infant  Baptism,  and  had 
labored  to  persuade  the  churches  to  practise  it,  and  yet  had  made 
no  mention  of  its  having  ever  been  the  usage  of  the  Christian 
church ;  would  not  every  one  say,  this  is  a  presumptive  proof  that 
he  was  endeavoring  to  support  an  innovation,  and  that  there  had 
been  no  established  usage  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  to  which  he 
was  able  to  appeal  in  support  of  his  opinion  ?  Could  it  be  sup- 
posed that  a  learned  Christian  bishop,  within  a  hundred  years  of 
the  apostles,  would  be  ignorant  of  what  the  custom  was  which  they 
handed  down  to  the  churches,  or  would  neglect  to  refer  to  the 
usage  of  the  churches,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  for  the  support  of 
his  own  views  ?  * 

*  The  following  remarks  are  extracted  from  Wardlaw's  Dissertation  on  Infant 
Baptism.  See  Appendix  A.  p.  207  :  "  TertuUian  was  remarkable  for  singular  and 
extravagant  opinions.  On  the  particular  subject  before  us,  he  not  only  advised 
the  delay  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  infants,  but  also  of  unmarried  persons.     Will 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  401 

Perhaps  some  one  may  say,  that,  if  Infant  Baptism  had  been 
the  general  practice  of  the  Christian  church,  it  must  have  been 
expressly  mentioned  by  some  writer  previous  to  Tertullian.  But 
it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  there  was  no  considerable  writer  pre- 
vious to  the  age  of  TertuUian,  except  Justin  Martyr.  Ircnaeus 
and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  were  his  contemporaries.  Now  are 
there  not  many  questions  of  great  moment  respecting  the  canon- 
ical credit  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  respecting 
various  doctrines  and  usages  in  the  Christian  church,  which  are 
not  mentioned  in  any  of  the  scanty  remains  of  the  first  ages  after 
the  apostles  ?  But  it  is  to  be  particularly  noticed,  that  the  first 
express  mention  we  find  of  Infant  Baptism  clearly  implies,  that  it 
was  then  the  common  practice. 

As  to  the  construction  which  R.  Robinson,  in  his  History  of 
Baptism,  and  others  who  agree  with  him,  put  upon  the  testimony 
of  Tertullian  —  how  can  any  man  think  that  it  has  the  least 
shadow  of  reason  to  support  it,  or  that  it  can  stand  a  moment  be- 
fore an  impartial  examination  ? 

our  Baptist  brethren  admit  the  inference  as  to  the  latter,  which  they  draw  as  to  the 
former  1  The  truth  is,  that,  as  to  both  the  legitimate  inference  is  the  contrary.  The 
very  advice,  to  delay,  is  a  conclusive  evidence  of  the  previous  existence  of  the  practice. 
This  is  the  point.  The  opinion  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  It  has  no  authority. 
His  condemning  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants,  not  only  proves  its  previous  exist- 
ence ;  it  proves  more.  It  proves  that  it  was  no  innovation.  When  a  man  con- 
demns a  practice,  he  is  naturally  desirous  to  support  his  peculiar  views  by  the 
strongest  arguments.  Could  Tertullian,  therefore,  have  shown,  that  the  practice 
was  of  recent  origin  ;  that  it  had  been  introduced  in  his  own  day,  or  even  at  any 
time  subsequent  to  the  lives  of  the  apostles ;  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  he 
would  have  availed  himself  of  a  ground  so  obvious,  and  so  conclusive.  It  proves 
still  further,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  the  general  practice  of  the  church  in 
Tertullian's  time  His  opinion  is  his  own.  It  is  that  of  a  dissentient  from  the 
universal  body  of  professing  Christians.  He  never  pretends  to  say,  that  any  part 
of  the  church  had  held  or  acted  upon  it.  But  the  total  absence  of  any  attempt  to 
support  and  recommend  it  by  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  apostolic 
times,  or  of  any  part  of  the  church  at  any  intervening  period  between  those  times 
and  his  own,  certainly  goes  far  to  prove  the  matter  of  fact,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  the  original  and  universal  practice. 

34* 


402  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

^  Testimony  of  Origen. 

"  Since  Origen  was  born,  A.  d.  185,  that  is  85  years  after  the 
apostles,  his  grandfather,  or  at  least  his  great-grandfather  must 
have  Uved  in  the  apostles'  time.  And  as  he  could  not  be  igno- 
rant whether  he  was  himself  baptized  in  infancy,  so  he  had  no 
further  than  his  own  family  to  go  for  inquiry,  how  it  was  practised 
in  the  times  of  the  apostles.  Besides,  Origen  was  a  learned  man, 
and  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  usages  of  the  churches  ;  in  most 
of  which  he  had  also  travelled ;  for  as  he  was  bom  and  bred  at 
Alexandria,  so  it  appears  from  Eusebius,  that  he  had  Uved  in 
Greece,  and  at  Rome,  and  in  Cappadocia,  and  Arabia,  and  spent 
the  main  part  of  his  life  in  Syria  and  Palestine."  * 

The  principal  passages  in  the  writings  of  Origen,  in  which  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  mentioned,  are  the  following : 

Homily  Sth,  on  Levit.  c.  xii. 

"  According  to  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptism  is  given  even 
to  infants ;  when  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  needed 
forgiveness  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  seem  to  be 
superfluous." 

This  testimony  needs  no  comment  in  regard  to  the  fact,  that  in- 
fants were  baptized. 

Homily  on  Lvke  xiv. 

"  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Of  what  sins  ? 
Or  when  have  they  sinned  ?  Or  can  there  be  any  reason  for  the 
laver  in  their  case,  unless  it  be  according  to  the  sense  we  have 
mentioned  above  ;  viz.,  no  one  is  free  from  pollution,  though  he  haa 
lived  but  one  day  upon  earth.  And  because  by  baptism  native 
pollution  is  taken  away,  therefore  infants  are  baptized.^* 

But  the  testimony  of  Origen  which  is  the  most  important  of  all, 
is  in  his 

*  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  I.  p.  73. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  403 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  lib.  5. 

"  For  this  cause  it  was  that  the  church  received  an  order  from 
the  apostles,  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants." 

These  testimonies  not  only  imply  that  Infant  Baptism  was  gen- 
erally known  and  jiractised,  but  also  mention  it  as  an  order  rer- 
cdved  from  the  apostles.  And  although  some  may  doubt  the 
correctness  of  Origen's  reasoning  as  to  the  ground  of  the  practice  ; 
no  one  can  reasonably  doubt  that  he  is  a  good  witness  of  the  fact, 
that  such  was  the  practice,  and  that  it  was  understood  to  be 
received  from  the  apostles. 

To  any  objections  which  have  been  made  to  the  genuineness  of 
these  quotations  from  Origen,  I  refer  to  Wall's  History,  Chap.  5, 
as  containing  a  satisfactory  answer.  I  shall  cite  only  the  follow- 
ing: 

"  In  these  translations  of  Origen,  (translations  from  the  origi- 
nal Greek,  which  is  lost,  into  Latin,)  —  "  if  there  were  found  but 
one  or  two  places,  and  those  in  Rufinus  alone,  which  speak  of 
Infant  Baptism  ;  there  might  have  been  suspicion  of  their  being 
interpolations.  But  when  there  are  so  many  of  them,  brought  in 
on  several  occasions,  in  translations  made  by  several  men,  who 
were  of  several  parties,  and  enemies  to  one  another,  and  upon  no 
temptation,  (for  it  is  certain  that  in  their  time  there  was  no  dis- 
pute about  Infant  Baptism,)  —  that  they  should  all  be  forged 
without  any  reason,  is  absurd  to  think.  Especially  if  we  consider 
that  these  translators  lived  not  much  more  than  a  hundred  years 
after  Origen's  time  ;  the  Christians  then  must  have  known  whether 
infants  had  been  used  to  be  baptized  in  Origen's  time,  or  not ;  — 
the  very  tradition  from  father  to  son  must  have  carried  a  memory 
of  it  for  so  short  a  time.  And  then,  for  them  to  make  Origen 
speak  of  a  thing  which  all  the  world  knew  was  not  in  use  in  his 
time,  must  have  made  them  ridiculous." 

Testimony  of  Oyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  150  years  after  the  apostles. 
In  the  year  253,  sixty-six  bishops  met  in  Council  at  Carthage. 


404  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Fidus,  a  country  bishop,  had  sent  a  letter  with  two  cases,  on 
■which  he  desired  their  opinion.  The  one,  which  related  to  our 
present  subject,  was,  whether  an  infant  might  be  baptized  before  it 
was  eight  days  old.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  cite 
the  following  passages  from  the  Letter  of  the  bishops. 

"  Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops  who  were  present  in  the 
council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidus  our  Brother,  Greeting." 

—  "  As  to  the  case  of  Infants  ;  —  whereas  you  judge  that  they 
must  not  he  baptized  within  two  or  three  days  after  they  are  borUy 
and  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  that  no  one 
should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is 
horn;  we  were  all  in  the  Council  of  a  very  diflFerent  opinion." 
"  This  therefore  was  our  opinion  in  the  Council ;  that  we  ought  not 
to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God.  And 
this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all,  is,  we  think,  more  especially  to  be 
observed  in  reference  to  infants,  even  to  those  newly  bom." 

Respecting  these  quotations,  I  would  suggest  the  following 
remarks : 

First.  Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  opinions  of  Cyprian  and 
the  bishops  connected  with  him,  respecting  the  grounds  of  Infant 
Baptism ;  their  testimony  to  the  fact,  which  is  all  we  now  inquire 
after,  holds  good. 

Second.  The  quotations  above  made  from  the  letter  of  the 
bishops  prove  incontrovertibly,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  well  known 
and  commonly  practised  at  that  time.  It  is  plain  that  Fidus  who 
put  the  question,  and  the  bishops  who  resolved  it,  both  took  it  for 
granted  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized  ;  only  Fidus  thought  it 
should  be  omitted  till  the  eighth  day. 

Third.  This  testimony  has  great  weight ;  as  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  not  one  of  sixty-six  bishops,  living  150  years  after 
the  apostles,  and  so  near  the  time  of  Origen  and  Tertullian,  and 
headed  by  the  most  distinguished  man  then  in  the  Christian  church, 
should  not  have  doubted  the  propriety  of  applying  baptism  to 
infants,  if  the  church  hitherto  had  not  made  it  their  common 
practice. 

The  arguments  of  Wall  prove,  beyond  all  question,  the  genuine- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  405 

ness  of  this  Epistle  of  Cjprian  and  his  fellow  bishops.  (See 
History  of  Inf.  Bap.  Vol.  I.  chap.  6.)  The  Epistle  contains  incon- 
trovertible, overpowering  evidence  of  the  usual  practice  of  the 
churches  in  Cyprian's  time,  and,  of  course,  in  times  previous  to 
his.  If  the  practice  had  been  a  novelty,  or  if  there  had  been 
any  considerable  division  or  controversy  in  the  churches  respect- 
ing it ;  how  could  such  a  circumstance  have  been  forgotten,  or 
passed  over  in  silence  ? 

Optatm. 

This  father  lived  260  years  after  the  apostles.  In  the  passage 
to  which  I  shall  refer,  he  had  been  comparing  a  Christian's  put- 
ting on  Christ  in  baptism,  to  putting  on  a  garment.  He  then 
Bays :  "  But  lest  any  one  say,  I  speak  irreverently  in  calling 
Christ  a  garment,  let  him  read  what  the  Apostle  says,  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ.  Oh !  what  a  garment  is  this,  which  is  always  one,  and 
which  fits  all  ages  and  all  shapes.  It  is  neither  too  large  for  in- 
fants, nor  too  small  for  young  men." 

The  meaning  of  this  passage  in  regard  to  the  subject  before  us, 
is  perfectly  plain. 


Gregory  Nazianzen,  260  years  after  the  apostles. 

The  passage  I  shall  cite  is  from  his  Oration  on  Basil.  Orat.  20. 
After  comparing  Basil  to  Abraham,  Moses,  etc.,  he  compares  him 
to  Samuel,  and  undertakes  to  show  the  points  of  similitude  between 
them. 

"  Samuel  among  them  that  call  upon  his  name  was  given  before 
he  was  born,  and  immediately  after  his  birth  was  consecrated,  and 
he  became  an  anointer  of  kings  and  priests  out  of  a  horn.  And 
was  not  this  man,  (Basil,)  consecrated  to  God  in  his  infancy  from 
the  womb,  and  carried  to  the  steps,"  (doubtless  the  baptismal 
font,)  "  in  a  coat  ?  "  He  plainly  referred  to  the  coat  which  waa 
used  in  baptism,  and  compared  it  to  the  coat  which  was  made  for 


406  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Samuel  by  his  mother.  This  is  a  clear  testimony  to  what  was 
usual  in  regard  to  baptism  at  that  time. 

Wall  has  given  an  abstract  of  Gregory's  oration  on  baptism,  to 
which  I  must  refer  the  reader.  Gregory  first  gives  his  opinion  in 
favor  of  delaying  the  baptism  of  children  till  they  are  three  years 
old.  Still  he  expresses  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  imply,  that  the 
usual  practice  was  against  him.  But  on  reconsidering  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  he  advises  that  infants  should  be  baptized. 

The  testimony  of  Ambrose  shows  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
was  common  in  his  day. 

Chrysostom,  who  lived  280  years  after  the  apostles,  plainly 
shows  what  was  the  practice  of  the  churches  in  regard  to  Infant 
Baptism  in  his  day,  and  how  he  regarded  it  himself. 

I  quote  only  one  passage,  which  is  in  a  Homily  cited  by  Juhan 
and  by  Austin,  and  which  contains  a  very  explicit  recognition  of 
Infant  Baptism.  He  says,  "  Some  think  that  the  heavenly  grace 
(of  baptism)  consists  only  in  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  but  I  have  reck- 
oned up  ten  advantages  of  it.  For  this  cause  we  haptize  infants 
also,  though  they  are  not  defiled  with  sin  ;  "  or  as  Austin  has  quoted 
it  from  the  Greek  of  Chrysostom,  —  "  though  they  have  not  any 
transgressions,"  —  meaning,  doubtless,  actual  sins. 

Augustin,  (or  Austin)  a  Christian  father  highly  distinguished 
both  for  his  learning  and  piety,  flourished  288  years  after  the 
apostles.  The  testimonies  which  he  gave  to  the  fact,  that  infants 
were  baptized,  and  that  this  usage  was  universally  understood  and 
acknowledged  to  have  been  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  are 
very  plain  and  explicit. 

Remarking  on  the  passage  1  Cor.  7:  14,  Austin  says  ;  "  There 
were  then  Christian  infants,  (parvuli  Christiani,)  who  were  sancti- 
fied," that  is,  baptized,  "  by  the  authority  of  one  or  both  of  their 
parents."  In  another  place,  he  speaks  of  the  good  which  Chris- 
tian baptism  does  to  infants,  and  says  that  the  faith  of  those  by 
whom  the  child  is  brought  to  be  consecrated,  is  profitable  to  the 
child.  In  his  book  against  the  Donatists,  he  speaks  of  those  who 
were  baptized  in  infancy  or  in  childhood. 

In  the  same  book,  he  says,  where  baptism  is  had,  if  faith  is  by 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  407 

necessity  wanting,  salvation  is  secured.  He  then  adds  ;  "  Which 
the  whole  body  of  the  church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them,  in  the 
case  of  little  infants  who  are  baptized ;  who  certainly  cannot  be- 
believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness.  And  yet  no  Christian 
will  say,  they  are  baptized  in  vain." 

Although  Austin  here  mentioned  Infant  Baptism  incidentally, 
his  words  show  that  it  was  universally  practised,  and  had  been  so 
from  time  immemorial,  and  that  no  Christian  of  any  sect  was  of  a 
difi'ercnt  opinion.  "  And  they  had  only  300  years  to  look  back 
to  the  apostles  ;  whereas  we  now  have  1800.  And  the  writings 
and  records  which  are  now  lost,  were  then  extant,  and  easily 
kno^vn." 

Austin's  Letter  to  Boniface,  which  treats  mainly  of  the  subject 
of  Infant  Baptism,  shows  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  that 
it  was  universally  practised  by  the  church,  and  was  understood 
to  be  a  divine  appointment. 

In  his  book  on  Genesis,  he  says :  "  The  custom  of  our  mother 
the  church  in  baptizing  infants  must  not  be  disregarded,  nor 
accounted  useless ;  and  it  must  by  all  means  be  believed  to  be 
a  tradition,  (or  order)  of  the  apostles;  apostolica  traditio."  And 
in  accordance  with  this,  he  says,  in  another  place :  "  It  is  most 
justly  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  delivered, "  (ordered, 
or  taught,)  by  apostolic  authority  ;  that  is,  that  it  came  not  by  a 
general  council,  or  by  any  authority  later  or  less  than  that  of 
the  apostles. "  And  again  he  speaks  of  baptizing  infants  "  by 
the  authority  of  the  whole  church,  which  was  undoubtedly  dehv- 
ered  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  " 

In  his  book  against  the  Donatists,  while  maintaining  the  validity 
of  baptism,  though  administered  to  those  who  are  destitute  of 
faith,  he  refers  especially  to  those  who  were  baptized  when  they 
were  infants  or  youths  ;  "  maxime  qui  infantes  vel  pueri  baptizati 
sunt." 

The  universal  acknowledgment  of  Infant  Baptism  as  a  practice 
derived  from  the  apostles,  is  brought  out  frequently  and  very 
clearly  in  the  controversy  between  Austin  and  the  Pelagians. 
The   Pelagians,  who   denied   original  sin,  were  pressed  with  the 


408  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

argument  from  Infant  Baptism.  It  would  have  been  very  much 
to  their  purpose  to  assert,  had  it  been  in  their  power,  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  was  not  enjoined  by  Christ  or  his  apostles. 
If  they  had  known  any  society  of  Christians  existing  in  their  day 
or  before,  who  disowned  Infant  Baptism ;  their  interest  would 
have  led  them  to  plead  such  an  example  in  their  own  behalf. 
But  they  >vere  far  from  anything  like  this.  Celestius  owns  that 
infants  are  to  be  baptized  according  to  the  rule  of  the  imiversal 
church ;  and  Pelagius  complained  that  some  men  slandered  him 
as  if  he  denied  baptism  to  infants ;  but  declared  that  he  never 
had  heard  of  any  one,  no  not  even  of  an  impious  heretic  or 
sectary,  who  denied  Infant  Baptism. 

Now,  according  to  Wall,  (to  whom  I  am  chiefly  indebted  for 
these  testimonies  and  results,)  if  there  had  been  any  church  in  the 
world  that  did  not  baptize  infants,  these  two  men  must  have  heard 
of  them,  being  such  travellers  as  they  were.  For  they  were  born 
and  bred,  the  one  in  Britain,  the  other  in  Ireland.  They  lived 
a  long  time  at  Rome,  to  which  all  the  people  of  the  known  world 
had  resort.  They  were  both  for  some  time  at  Carthage  in 
Africa.  Then  the  one  settled  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  other  trav- 
elled through  all  the  noted  churches  in  Europe  and  Asia.  It 
is  impossible  there  should  have  been  any  church,  which  had  a 
singular  practice  as  to  Infant  Baptism,  but  they  must  have  heard 
of  it.  So  that  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  there  was  not  at  that 
time,  nor  within  the  memory  of  the  men  of  that  time,  any  Chris- 
tian society  which  denied  baptism  to  infants. 

I  shall  here  subjoin  an  argument  of  great  weight,  and  nearly 
in  the  words  of  Wall,  Vol.  I.  chap.  21 ;  namely ;  that  Irenaeus, 
Epiphanius,  Philastrius,  Austin,  and  Theodoret,  who  wrote  cata- 
logues of  all  the  sects  and  sorts  of  Christians  that  they  knew  or 
had  ever  heard  of,  make  no  mention  of  any  who  denied  Infaini 
Baptism,  except  those  who  denied  all  baptism.  Each  of  them,  he 
says,  mentions  some  sects  that  used  no  baptism  at  all ;  and  these 
sects  Austin  represents  as  disowning  the  Scripture,  or  a  great 
part  of  it.  But  of  all  the  sects  that  acknowledged  water  baptism 
in  any  case,  no  one  is  mentioned  that  denied  it  to  infants. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  409 

Now  since  all  these  authors  make  it  their  business  to  rehearse 
the  opinions  and  usages  which  the  various  sects  held  different  from 
the  church  at  large,  and  yet  mention  no  difference  in  this  respect ; 
we  may  well  conclude  that  all  of  them  practised  in  this  particular 
as  the  church  at  large  did.  If  the  church  had  not  baptized 
infants,  and  the  sectaries  had,  it  would  have  been  noted.  And 
if  the  church  had  baptized  infants,  and  the  sectaries  had  not,  that 
also  would  have  been  noted.  For  these  writers  tell  us  that  each 
sect  had  its  peculiarities.  And  they  mention  differences  of  much 
less  moment  than  this  Avould  have  been. 

I  shall  only  add  the  remark  of  Wall,  that  the  first  body  of  men 
we  read  of,  that  denied  baptism  to  infants,  were  the  Petrobrusians^ 
A.  D.  1150. 

Thus  it  appears  that  we  have  evidence  as  abundant,  and  spe- 
cific, and  certain,  as  history  affords  of  almost  any  other  fact,  that 
Infant  Baptism  universally  prevailed  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
through  four  centuries.  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  are  satisfied, 
on  the  ground  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  that  the  churches  im- 
mediately succeeding  the  apostles,  observed  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  a  sacred  day ;  that  the  books,  of  which  our  Testament  is 
composed,  were  generally  acknowledged  as  of  divine  authority ; 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  frequently  celebrated,  and  that  women 
partook  of  it  as  well  as  men.  But  which  of  these  facts  is  better 
supported  by  historical  evidence,  than  the  baptism  of  infants  ? 

On  the  value  of  this  argument  from  early  Ecclesiastical  History, 
I  shall  offer  a  few  remarks. 

It  cannot  with  any  good  reason  be  denied  or  doubted  that  those 
Christian  writers,  who  have,  in  different  ways,  given  testimony  to 
the  prevalence  of  Infant  Baptism  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity, 
are  credible  witnesses.  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  they  were 
under  the  best  advantages  to  know,  whether  the  practice  of 
Infant  Baptism  commenced  in  the  time  of  the  apostles.  On  this 
subject,  as  they  were  not  likely  to  mistake,  so  their  testimony  is 
entitled  to  full  credit. 

Infant  Baptism  was  a  subject,  in  which  early  Christians  must 
have  felt  a  very  lively  interest.  It  was  a  thing  of  the  most  public 
VOL.  in.  35 


410  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

nature,  and  a  mistake  concerning  it  must  have  been  altogether 
improbable,  —  I  might  say  impossible.  It  was  certainly  impos- 
sible that  Christians  should  be  mistaken  as  to  the  question,  whether 
Infant  Baptism  was  generally  practised  in  their  own  age.  And 
it  must  have  been  almost  as  impossible  for  them  to  be  mistaken, 
as  to  the  practice  of  the  preceding  age.  Fof  they  had  memories, 
as  well  as  we  ;  and  they  had  oral  communications ;  and  they  had 
written  records  also.  And  why  should  not  they  have  known  what 
took  place  in  the  time  of  their  fathers,  as  well  as  we  know  what 
took  place  in  the  time  of  our  fathers  ?  But  surely  we  have  no 
doubt  whether  we  were  baptized  in  infancy  ;  or  whether  our  parents 
were  baptized  in  infancy ;  or  whether  in  the  days  of  our  fathers 
it  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the  churches  with  which  we  are 
connected,  to  give  baptism  to  children.  Who  can  imagine  that 
we  are  in  any  danger  of  mistake,  as  to  the  practice  of  the  first 
churches  of  New  England  relative  to  their  infant  offspring  ?  If 
any  one  should  take  upon  him  to  deny  that  those  churches  baptized 
their  children ;  we  should  think  him  extremely  ignorant,  or  in 
sport.  We  deem  it  sufficient,  that  our  fathers  have  told  us 
it  was  so,  and  that  we  never  heard  any  one  question  it.  But 
besides  this,  there  are  many  circumstances  which  plainly  imply 
it ;  and  we  have  books,  written  at  the  time,  which  contain  indubit- 
able evidence  of  the  fact.  We  say  too,  that  the  very  existence 
of  the  practice  at  the  present  time,  considering  how  public  and 
how  important  a  thing  it  is,  must  be  regarded  as  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  it  was  the  practice  two  hundred  years  ago,  unless  it 
can  be  made  to  appear,  that  a  change  has  taken  place,  and  that  our 
churches  have  been  induced  to  renounce  their  former  views,  and  to 
embrace  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism.  If  such  a  change  has 
taken  place,  let  it  be  made  to  appear.  If  no  evidence  of  this 
can  be  produced,  it  is  just  to  conclude,  that  no  change  has  taken 
place,  and  that  the  present  practice  is  only  a  continuation  of  that 
which  prevailed  in  New  England  from  the  first. 

These  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  subject  under  consideration. 
My  position  is,  that  the  fathers,  from  whom  I  have  made  citations 
relative  to  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  are  credible  witnesses ; 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  411 

that  they  were  under  the  best  advantages  to  know  whether  the 
practice  had  prevailed  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  accord- 
ingly, that  their  testimony  on  the  subject  is  entitled  to  entire  con- 
fidence. In  different  circumstances,  and  in  different  countries, 
they  stand  forth  as  witnesses,  that  Infant  Baptism  had  been  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Christian  church  from  the  beginning.  Al- 
though they  lived  at  different  periods,  they  were  all  near  enough  to 
the  time  of  the  apostles  to  obtain  correct  information  respecting  a 
practice  like  this.  In  their  own  time  the  practice  was  universal. 
They  tell  us  it  had  been  so  from  the  beginning.  Some  of  them 
would  have  been  quite  ready  to  deny  this,  if  they  could  have 
found  any  reasons  for  doing  so.  But  they  unite  in  declaring,  that 
the  practice  had  been  universal  in  the  Christian  church  from  the 
time  of  the  apostles. 

Should  any  one  say,  there  might  have  been  a  change,  and  the 
baptism  of  infants  might  have  been  introduced  afterward,  either 
gradually  or  suddenly ;  I  would  ask,  where  is  the  evidence  of 
this  ?  Even  if  all,  who  lived  at  the  time,  had  been  united  in  such 
a  change,  it  could  not  have  taken  place  without  leaving  some  clear 
proof  of  the  fact ;  some  traces,  which  would  have  been  visible  to 
those  who  succeeded.  But  is  it  supposable  that  all  who  lived  at 
the  time  of  such  a  change,  would  be  united  in  it  ?  And  if  they 
were  not  united,  there  must  be  some  evidence  of  the  disunion ; 
some  traces  of  the  controversy  of  disagreeing  parties  ;  some  ac- 
count of  the  remonstrances  of  the  more  conscientious  and  faithful 
against  those  who  were  unstable,  and  who  wished  to  make  unwar- 
rantable changes,  and  of  the  arguments  of  such  innovators  to 
justify  themselves  against  the  charge  of  corrupting  the  simplicity 
of  a  Christian  institution.  But  where  is  the  evidence  of  such  a 
change  ?  Where  do  we  find  any  traces  of  it  ?  What  declara- 
tion, suggestion,  or  allusion  is  there,  in  any  written  history,  or  in 
any  tradition,  making  it  certain,  or  in  any  degree  probable,  that 
such  a  change  ever  took  place  ?  Who  ever  heard  of  the  conten- 
tion of  parties  on  this  subject ;  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  faith- 
ful, or  the  apologies  of  innovators  ?  Now  if  the  early  Christians 
had  among  them  any  of  the  vigilance  and  zeal  of  those  who,  in 


412  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

modern  times,  have  denied  Infant  Baptism ;  how  could  the  baptism 
of  infants  have  been  introduced  without  exciting  dissatisfaction, 
complaint  and  opposition  ?  Take  the  Baptist  churches,  now  dis- 
tinguished for  their  pietj  and  zeal  in  Great  Britain,  America  or 
India.  Should  any  of  these  churches  attempt  to  introduce  Infant 
Baptism,  would  not  a  loud  voice  be  quickly  raised  against  them  ? 
Would  they  not  be  obliged  to  encounter  arguments  too  many,  and 
opposition  too  decided,  to  be  either  despised,  or  forgotten  ?  Now 
turn  to  the  primitive  churches.  If  they  did  not  consider  Infant 
Baptism  a  divine  institution,  why  did  they  not  lift  up  their  voice 
and  array  their  arguments  against  it,  when  it  was  first  brought 
into  use  ?  We  have  very  ancient  and  particular  accounts  of  contro- 
versies and  heresies  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  both  doctrinal 
and  practical.  How  happens  it,  that  we  have  no  account  of  the  here- 
sy of  Infant  Baptism,  and  no  account  of  any  controversy  respecting 
it?  If  we  may  judge  from  what  has  appeared  in  modern  times, 
we  should  think  that  there  are  few  subjects  more  likely  to  excite 
attention  than  this,  and  few  subjects  on  which  the  disagreement 
of  Christians  would  be  more  likely  to  be  attended  with  warmth,  or 
more  likely  to  be  remembered. 

These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  show  the  value  of  the  argument 
from  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  testimony  of  the  early  Christian 
writers  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  the  uniform  practice  of  the 
church,  is  worthy  of  full  credit,  and  as  the  circumstances  were, 
affords  a  conclusive  argument  that  it  was  a  divine  institution.  And 
I  well  know,  that  an  argument  hke  this  on  the  opposite  side,  would 
be  quite  as  much  relied  upon  by  those  who  deny  Infant  Baptism, 
as  this  is  relied  upon  by  us.  If  they  could  but  make  it  appear  by 
citations  from  Ecclesiastical  Histories,  that  the  churches,  immedi- 
ately after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  were  united  in  rejecting  Infant 
Baptism,  and  that  this  continued  to  be  the  case  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years,  without  the  exception  of  a  single  church  or  indi- 
vidual Christian  who  pleaded  for  the  practice ;  would  they  not 
earnestly  seize  this  fact,  and  confidently  rely  upon  it,  as  an  unan- 
swerable argument  against  Infant  Baptism  ?  I  would  seriously 
propose  this  view  of  the  subject  to  the  consideration  of  those  who 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  413 

differ  from  us  on  the  question  at  issue.  Let  them  remember  how 
much  writers  on  their  side  have  labored  to  show,  that  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  not  the  universal  practice  of  the  early  Christian  churches  ; 
and  how  much  stress  they  have  laid  on  the  least  shadow  of  evi- 
dence, that  primitive  Christians,  in  any  instances,  did  not  baptize 
their  children.  Now  if  they  could  produce  clear  evidence  that 
Christians  in  general  were  not  accustomed  to  baptize  children  ;  if 
they  could  produce  one  plain  declaration,  or  even  the  slightest 
hint,  from  Origen,  Augustine,  or  Pelagius,  showing  that  Infant 
Baptism  was  not  practised  by  the  first  Christian  churches,  and  that 
no  order  or  tradition  in  favor  of  it  was  ever  received  from  the  apos- 
tles, —  or  even  expressing  a  doubt  on  the  subject,  would  they  not 
hold  this  to  be  an  unquestionable  proof  against  Infant  Baptism  ? 
And  would  not  their  confidence  in  such  a  conclusion  rise  to  the 
highest  pitch,  if  they  could  make  it  appear  that,  when  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  first  introduced,  earnest  and  repeated  remonstrances 
were  made  against  it,  as  a  dangerous  innovation  ?  But  as  the 
proof  from  Ecclesiastical  History  is  wholly  on  the  other  side,  and 
shows  clearly,  that  infant  Baptism  was  the  imiform  practice  of  the 
church  in  the  ages  succeeding  the  apostles ;  and  as  no  want  of 
genuineness  in  the  works  referred  to,  and  no  want  of  clearness  or 
fulness  in  the  testimonies  which  they  contain  can  be  pretended ; 
how  can  our  Baptist  brethren  deny  the  force  of  this  argument  in 
favor  of  Infant  Baptism  ? 

If  there  should  be  any  remaining  doubt  in  your  minds,  as  to  the 
propriety  of  relying  on  the  testimony  of  uninspired  men  on  such  a 
subject  as  this,  and  if  you  should  think,  that  nothing  but  an  express 
declaration  from  the  word  of  God  ought  to  satisfy  us  ;  I  would  turn 
your  attention  for  a  few  moments  to  the  consequences  of  adhering 
to  this  principle.  In  the  first  place,  what  evidence  have  you, 
except  the  testimony  of  uninspired  men,  that  the  several  books 
which  constitute  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  now  have  it,  are  the 
very  books  to  which  Christ  and  the  apostles  referred  as  the  word 
of  God  ?  Neither  of  them  has  given  us  any  specific  instruction 
on  this  point ;  and  we  go  to  Josephus,  who  was  neither  an  inspired 
man,  nor  a  Christian ;  to  the  Talmud,  and  to  Jerome,  Origen, 

35* 


414  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Aquila,  and  other  uninspired  men,  to  find  a  list  of  tlie  books,  which 
we  are  to  receive  as  given  by  inspiration  of  God ;  and  having 
proved  from  their  testimony,  that  these  were  the  books  which 
Christ  and  the  apostles  regarded  as  sacred  writings,  we  prove  in 
other  ways,  that  those  writings  have  come  down  to  us  without 
any  material  alteration.  And  we  must  use  the  same  kind  of  rea- 
soning in  regard  to  the  New  Testament.  We  have  no  voice  from 
heaven,  and  no  express  testimony  of  any  inspired  writer,  that  the 
several  books,  which  compose  the  entire  Canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, were  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  or  that  they  were  all 
written  by  the  apostles,  or  even  by  Christians.  But  we  go  to 
Eusebius,  and  to  other  uninspired  writers,  and  we  find,  that  they 
regarded  these  books,  as  the  genuine  productions  of  those  to  whom 
they  are  commonly  ascribed,  and  as  having  divine  authority.  It 
is  on  such  evidence  as  this,  that  we  rely  for  the  support  of  those 
sacred  books,  which  are  the  basis  of  our  faith,  and  which  teach  us 
what  are  the  doctrines  and  precepts  and  rites  of  our  religion.  And 
why  should  we  not  rely  on  their  testimony,  in  regard  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  religious  rite  was  understood  and  applied  by  the 
churches,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  ?  Why  should  we  not 
confide  in  them  as  credible  witnesses  of  a  fact,  which  they  had  the 
best  opportunity  to  be  acquainted  with,  and  no  temptation  to 
misrepresent  ?  * 

*  I  am  reluctant  to  say  what  I  think  respecting  the  manner  in  which  some  Bap- 
tist writers  have  treated  the  historical  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  I 
make  the  appeal  to  men  of  any  denomination,  who  have  the  requisite  qualifica- 
tions, whether  an  instance  can  easily  be  found,  of  greater  unfairness,  or  of  a  more 
determined  effort  to  discolor  all  focts,  and  evade  all  arguments  on  the  opposite 
side,  than  is  exhibited  in  the  writers  referred  to. 

Whether  we  are  engaged  in  confuting  error,  or  in  defending  the  truth,  it  is  our 
bounden  duty  to  use  the  faculties  which  God  has  given  us,  with  Christian  candor,  and 
with  the  most  exact  integrity  and  impartiality.  Any  deviation  from  these  in  our 
inquiries  after  truth,  or  in  the  manner  of  conducting  controversy,  must  be  as  offen- 
sive to  God,  to  say  the  least,  as  unfairness,  dishonesty,  or  artful  evasion,  in  the 
common  transactions  of  life.  The  God  of  truth  neither  requires  nor  permits  us  to 
use  carnal  weapons  in  defence  of  his  cause.  I  have  frequently  been  ready  to  say 
that  God  would  rather  see  us  contend  for  error  with  a  right  spirit,  than  for  truth, 
with  a  wrong. 


LECTURE     CXVII. 


BAPTISM  IN  RELATION  TO   CIRCUMCISION. 

I  HAVE  now  exhibited  the  arguments  -which  I  regard  as  most 
weighty  and  conclusive  in  favor  of  the  position,  that  the  apostles 
understood  their  commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize,  as  including 
children.  There  are,  however,  several  remaining  topics,  more  or 
less  related  to  the  subject,  which  must  be  carefully  considered. 
And  when  thus  considered,  they  will  afford  important  collateral 
evidence  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  will  have  a  favorable 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  candid  inquirers  after  the  truth. 

One  of  these  remaining  topics  is,  baptism  comidered  in  relation 
to  circumcision. 

It  is  common  to  speak  of  one  thing  as  coming  in  the  place  of 
another,  when  there  is  a  general  agreement  between  them,  as  to 
the  object  sought,  or  the  end  to  be  answered,  how  different  soever 
they  may  be  in  other  respects.  Thus  our  meeting-houses,  or 
churches,  are  spoken  of  as  coming  in  the  place  of  the  Jewish 
temple  and  synagogues,  because  they  agree  in  being  designed  for 
public  worship,  and  public  religious  instruction.  As  to  the  form 
of  the  buildings,  and  the  particular  mode  of  worship  and  instruc- 
tion, they  differ  greatly.  So  also  in  regard  to  the  general  end 
sought,  we  consider  ministers  of  the  gospel  as  substituted  for  the 
Levitical  Priesthood  ;  the  more  spiiitual  services  of  Christians  for 
the  daily  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  ;  and  the  Lord's  Supper  for  the 
Passover.  In  each  of  these  cases,  there  is  an  obvious  agreement 
in  regard  to  the  general  object  in  view,  between  the  former  insti- 


416  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

tution,  and  that  which  comes  in  its  stead.  So  in  civil  matters. 
A  law  formerly  existed,  requiring  a  thief  to  be  punished  by 
scourging ;  but  that  law  has  been  set  aside,  and  another  enacted, 
requiring  a  thief  to  labor  in  prison,  with  solitary  confinement  at 
night.  This  mode  of  punishment,  we  speak  of  as  a  substitute  for 
the  other,  because  it  relates  to  the  same  subject,  and  is  intended 
to  answer  the  same  general  purpose.  Thus  too  we  speak  of  impris- 
onment or  exile  as  substituted  for  death. 

From  these  examples  you  learn  how  such  language  is  com- 
monly used.  And  it  must  be  proper  to  use  it  in  the  same  sense, 
in  relation  to  the  subject  before  us.  The  position  which  has  been 
maintained  by  the  ablest  writers,  and  which  I  shall  endeavor  to 
defend,  is,  that  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  This 
position  is  not  founded  so  much  on  any  particular  text,  as  on  the 
general  representations  of  Scripture,  and  the  nature  of  the  case. 
When  God  adopted  Abraham  and  his  posterity  to  be  his  pecuUar 
people,  he  commanded  them  to  be  circumcised  ;  and  it  appears 
from  the  representations  of  Moses  and  Paul,  that  those  who 
received  this  rite  were  under  special  obhgations  to  be  holy.  Cir- 
cumcision was,  then,  a  sign  put  upon  Abraham  and  his  seed, 
showing  them  to  be  a  peculiar  people,  under  peculiar  obligations  to 
God,  and  entitled  to  pecuhar  blessings.  Just  so  baptism  is  a 
sign,  put  upon  the  people  of  God  under  the  new  dispensation, 
signifying  substantially  the  same  obligations  and  blessings,  as 
those  which  were  signified  by  circumcision ;  —  the  same,  I  say, 
substantially,  though  in  some  circumstances  difierent.  If  then 
circumcision  was  a  rite,  by  which  persons  were  admitted  into  the 
society  of  God's  people,  and  consecrated  to  his  service,  under  the 
former  dispensation ;  and  if  circumcision  is  set  aside,  and  baptism 
is  the  rite  by  which  persons  are  admitted  into  the  society  of  God's 
people  and  consecrated  to  his  service,  under  the  new  dispensation ; 
it  is  evident  that  baptism  has  succeeded  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. We  cannot  but  be  satisfied  with  this  conclusion,  if  one  of 
these  rites  was,  in  all  unportant  respects,  the  same  as  the  other ; 
and  particularly,  if  they  were  both  appointed,  as  a  seal  of  the 
same  general  promise  of  God  to  his  people,  and  of  the  same  gene- 
ral relation  of  his  people  to  liim. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  417 

Now  if  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  is,  in 
the  most  important  respects,  designed  for  the  same  purpose  ;  we 
should  think  there  must  be  some  similarity  between  them  in 
regard  to  the  extent  of  their  personal  application.  Under  the 
former  dispensation,  if  any  who  had  been  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  were  made  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion, 
they  were  circumcised.  Accordingly,  if  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation, any  who  have  been  enemies  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity, 
are  converted  and  made  disciples  of  Christ,  they  are  to  be  bap- 
tized. This  conclusion,  which  we  should  naturally  adopt  from  the 
circumstance  that  baptism  was  substituted  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, perfectly  agrees  with  the  particular  instruction  given  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  command  as  to  baptism  related  prima- 
rily to  those  who  became  proselytes  to  Christ,  whether  they  were 
Jews  or  gentiles.  It  related  to  believers.  These  were  to  be 
baptized,  just  as  adult  proselytes  to  Judaism  had  before  been  cir- 
cumcised. And  what  is  the  natural  conclusion  respecting  the 
children  of  believers  ?  Plainly  this ;  that  as  the  children  of 
Abraham,  the  father  of  believers,  and  the  children  of  all  prose- 
lytes to  the  true  religion,  were  formerly  circumcised ;  so  the 
children  of  all  believers  are  now  to  be  baptized.  This  must  be 
our  conclusion,  unless  the  word  of  God  expressly  forbids  Infant 
Baptism,  or  unless  there  is  something  in  the  nature  and  design  of 
baptism,  which  makes  it  manifestly  unsuitable  to  apply  it  to  infant 
children. 

The  fact  that  circumcision  was  applied  only  to  men,  is  of  no 
consequence  as  to  the  argument ;  because  women  in  that  case,  as 
in  many  others,  were  considered  as  represented  by  men,  and  con- 
nected with  them.  Consequently  the  meaning  of  infant  circum- 
cision must  have  been  the  same,  as  though  it  had  been  apphed  to 
persons  of  both  sexes.  But  the  distinction,  formerly  made 
between  male  and  female  in  regard  to  the  application  of  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  is  done  away  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 
The  seal  is  now  to  be  apphed  to  believers  of  both  sexes ;  and  of 
course  to  all  their  children,  whether  sons  or  daughters. 

The  chief  objection  to  this  view  of  the  subject  arises  from  the 
fact,  that  Abraham's  servants  were  all  circumcised. 


418  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  I  remark,  first;  that  the  great 
promise  of  the  covenant  expressly  related  to  parents  and  cliildren. 
"  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed.'^  This  was  the  naturaly 
primary  relation.  The  relation  of  servants  to  their  master  was 
not  natural,  but  incidental  and  subordinate.  So  that  it  would  be 
nothing  strange,  if  less  respect  should  be  shown  to  this  relation, 
than  to  the  relation  of  children  to  parents.  It  was  so  under  the 
former  dispensation.  The  circumcision  of  children  was  a  promi- 
nent thing.  This  was  to  be  observed  in  all  generations,  so  long  as 
that  economy  continued.  Whether  there  was  any  occasion  to  cir- 
cumcise servants,  or  not,  the  circumcision  of  children  was  never  to 
fail.  Now  it  would  seem  perfectly  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  in 
respect  to  this  natural  primary  relation,  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
under  the  new  dispensation  should  be  applied  in  the  same  manner 
as  under  the  old,  though  it  might  not  be  in  respect  to  the  other 
relation,  which  is  incidental  and  inferior.  But  secondly,  I  do  not 
consider  baptism  as  by  any  means  intended  to  be  confined  to 
parents  and  children.  If  a  Christian  takes  the  children  of  his 
children,  or  the  children  of  any  relative,  into  a  near  relation  to 
himself,  and  engages  to  be  as  a  father  to  them ;  it  is,  in  my  view, 
perfectly  suitable  that  he  should  consecrate  them  to  God  by  bap- 
tism. And  I  think  the  same  also  in  regard  to  orphans,  or  any 
other  children,  whom  a  Christian  guardian  or  master  receives  into 
his  family,  and  undertakes,  as  sponsor,  to  bring  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  So  that  the  parallel  between 
circumcision  and  baptism  need  not  be  supposed  entirely  to  fail, 
even  in  regard  to  those  who  stand  in  other  relations  beside  that  of 
children. 

A  very  careful  examination  and  reexamination  of  this  subject, 
has  brought  me  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  appointment  and  uni- 
form practice  of  infant  circumcision,  in  connection  with  the  reasons 
on  which  it  rested  and  the  circumstances  attending  it,  would  natu- 
rally lead  the  apostles,  and  must  lead  us,  to  understand  the  rite  of 
baptism  as  coming  generally  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  as 
meant  to  be  applied  to  infant  children.  The  reasoning  which 
appertains  to  this  subject  will  be  exhibited  more  fully  in  another 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  419 

place.  I  might  make  citations  from  a  multitude  of  the  most 
respectable  authors,  containing  statements  of  this  argument  in 
different  forms.  But  I  shall  content  myself  with  referring  to 
Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  4,  ch.  16 ;  Dwight's  Discourses  on 
Infant  Baptism  ;  Storr's  Bib.  Theol.  Book  4,  §  112,  together  with 
111.  4th  of  the  same  section  ;  and  Knapp's  Theology,  §  142,  2.      : 

Seal  of  the  Covenant. 

If  we  would  arrive  at  satisfactory  views  on  this  subject,  we  must 
learn  directly  from  the  Scriptures,  in  what  sense  the  word  cove- 
nant is  there  used. 

The  Greek  dia&i^x7],  like  the  corresponding  Hebrew  n^'ia ,  sig- 
nifies, in  general,  any  arrangement,  constitution,  establishment, 
economy,  or  plan  of  proceeding.  Schleusner  says,  notat  disposi- 
tionem,  qualiscumque  ea  sit ;  and  generally,  omne,  quod  cum 
summa  certitudine  et  fide  factum  est.  The  use  of  the  word  in 
the  Septuagint  he  represents  to  be  the  same  :  Omne,  quod  certum 
et  constitutum  est;  ivhatever  is  appointed  and  made  sure;  an 
established  constitution,  or  plan.  It  is  from  this  general  sense, 
that  all  the  particular  senses  are  derived.  Thus  dia^/jxtj,  appoint- 
ment, plan,  establishment,  is  sometimes  a  Will,  or  Testament; 
sometimes  a  promise;  sometimes  a  precept;  sometimes  a  com- 
pact; and  sometimes  an  economy,  or  method  of  acting.  The 
word  signifies  one  or  another  of  these,  as  circumstances  require. 
Thus  in  Heb.  9:  16,  17,  dia^/jxtj  must  evidently  mean  a  Testa- 
ment, or  Will.  The  writer  says,  a  Testament,  dta&^xtj,  is  of  force 
after  men  are  dead,  and  is  of  no  force  while  the  testator  liveth. 
Here  the  word  signifies,  the  arrangement,  or  disposition,  which  a 
man  directs  to  be  made  of  his  afiairs  after  his  decease.  In  Luke 
1:  72,  the  word  denotes  the  divine  promise.  Zacharias  celebrates 
the  faithfulness  of  God  in  "  remembering  his  holy  covenant,  the 
oath  that  he  sware  to  Abraham,"  referring  to  the  promise  of  a 
Saviour.  Here  dta&tjy.rj  signifies  that  divine  arrangement,  plan, 
or  appointment,  respecting  a  Saviour,  which  was  made  known  in 
the  way  of  a  promise  to  Abraham.  In  Gen.  9:  9 — 18,  God 
speaks  of  making  a  covenant  with  man,  and  with  the  whole  ani- 
mal creation,  and  with  the  earth  too,  and  represents  this  covenant 


420  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

as  between  him  and  them.  Many  persons  understand  such  a 
phrase  to  denote  an  agreement  or  contract,  in  which  two  parties 
unite,  and  in  the  execution  of  which  both  parties  have  an  agency. 
But  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  the  present  case  ; 
for  the  irrational  part  of  the  creation  were  incapable  of  having 
any  agency  either  in  forming  or  executing  such  an  agreement. 
The  thing  promised  was,  that  the  earth  should  not  again  be 
destroyed  by  a  deluge.  This  was  God's  covenant ;  and  it  was  said 
to  be  between  God  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  7'ational 
and  irrational,  because  the  thing  which  God  determined  and 
promised  related  to  them.  So  that  what  is  here  called  God^s 
covenant,  was  in  reality  his  determination  and  promise  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  would  treat  man,  and  beast,  and  the  earth. 
The  earth  and  its  inhabitants  were  in  no  sense  a  party  to  this 
divine  covenant  or  arrangement,  except  as  they  were  to  be  bene- 
fited by  it.  This  establishment,  or  declared  purpose  of  God,  had 
a  seal.  "  God  said,  I  will  set  my  bow  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall 
be  a  token  of  the  covenant  between  7ne  and  the  earth.^'  The 
rainbow  was  appointed  to  be  a  sign  of  the  truth  of  Gold's  prom- 
ise ;  a  pledge  of  the  certain  execution  of  the  purpose  he  had 
declared. 

From  this  case  we  learn,  that  a  covenant  of  God  may  have 
respect  to  those  who  are  incapable  of  having  any  agency  either  in 
agreeing  to  it,  or  in  carrying  it  into  execution.  It  may  respect 
the  animal  creation,  day  and  night,  and  the  earth  itself.  And  if 
so,  it  may  surely  have  respect  to  infant  children.  And  this  is  no 
more  than  saying,  that  God  may  have  a  determination,  or  settled 
purpose,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  will  treat  infant  children ; 
and  that  he  may  make  known  such  a  determination  by  his  word. 
To  such  a  determination,  or  settled  plan  of  conduct,  the  Scriptures 
give  the  name  of  covenant. 

In  some  passages,  diaOtj^tj  signifies  a  command.  It  certainly 
has  this  sense  when  applied  to  the  decalogue  ;  as  Heb.  9:  4.  It 
has  this  sense.  Acts  7:  8 ;  "  God  gave  him  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision ; "  that  is,  a  command  to  circumcise.  I  apprehend, 
however,  that  the  word  has  a  broader  meaning  here,  and  denotes 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  421 

the  whole  economy,  which  God  established  in  regard  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  including  precepts,  promises,  and  privileges  ;  of 
■which  economy  circumcision  was  the  sign.  And  if  so,  the  word 
in  this  place  has  nearly  the  same  sense  as  it  appears  to  have  in 
Gal.  4:  24,  where  the  phrase  Uvo  covenants,  8vo  dia&^xai,  clearly 
means,  the  3Iosaic  and  the  Christian  economy.  So  in  Heb. 
9:  15,  the  first  covenant  doubtless  means  the  3Iosaie  dis2}ensation, 
and  in  v.  20,  the  blood  of  the  covenant  is  the  blood  by  which  that 
divine  economy  was  confirmed.  In  the  same  way  we  must  under- 
stand the  words  of  Christ  when  he  instituted  the  Supper :  "  This 
cup  is  the  NcAv  Testament  in  my  blood."  This  cup  of  wine  repre- 
sents my  blood,  by  which  the  neiv  dispensation  or  the  Christian 
covenant  is  confirmed. 

There  is  hardly  any  passage  in  the  Bible,  where  covenant 
directly  and  properly  means  a  compact  or  agreement  between  two 
parties.  But  in  various  instances,  it  may  imply  this,  or  something 
like  this,  by  necessary  consequence.  For  when  the  word  diad^xtj, 
signifying  a  divine  appointment,  precept,  or  promise,  has  respect 
to  moral  agents,  there  must  be  an  obligation  on  their  part  to 
accede  to  such  appointment,  precept,  or  promise,  and  to  act 
according  to  it.  But  when  the  divine  covenant,  that  is,  the 
divine  appointment,  or  constitution,  has  respect  to  things  not  pos- 
sessed of  moral  agency ;  it  cannot  imply,  that  they  are  under  any 
obligation  to  conform  to  it,  or  that  they  are  in  any  way  parties  in 
the  covenant,  except  merely  that  it  has  a  relation  to  them.  The 
word  covenant,  therefore,  considered  as  the  translation  of  dia&i^xT}, 
and  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew,  no  more  signifies  an  actual 
agreement  between  two  parties,  than  the  word  economy,  law,  or 
appointment. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  word  covenant,  is 
materially  difierent  from  the  meaning  of  covenant  in  common  dis- 
course, where  it  denotes  a  mutual  agreement.  The  supposition 
that  the  word,  as  used  in  the  Common  Version  of  the  Bible,  has 
this  signification,  must  encumber  the  subject  before  us  with  need- 
less difficulties.  For  if  dia&ijxrj,  covenant,  is  understood  to  mean 
an  agreement  between  two  parties  in  relation  to  the  interests  of 

VOL.  III.  36 


422  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

religion  ;  then  there  must  be  two  parties  capable  of  such  agree- 
ment,—  capable  of  engaging  in  a  mutual  religious  transaction. 
God  must  be  one  of  the  parties  ;  and  the  other  must  be  intelligent 
agents,  capable  of  acting  in  religious  concerns.  Infant  children 
must  of  course  be  excluded.  Whereas  if  we  duly  consider  the 
nature  of  a  covenant  in  the  Scripture  sense,  we  shall  see,  that  it 
may  just  as  well  relate  to  infant  cJnldren,  as  to  adults.  For 
surely  God  may  have  a  determination,  may  make  a  j^roynise,  may 
settle  an  economy  or  plan  of  proceeding,  in  regard  to  children,  as 
well  as  in  regard  to  men.  And  such  a  determination,  promise,  or 
economy,  being  a  matter  of  great  consequence,  may  with  the 
utmost  propriety,  be  marked  by  a  religious  rite.  And  a  religious 
rite,  thus  introduced,  may  very  justly  be  considered  a  seal  or  con- 
Jlrmation  of  God's  gracious  economy.  The  obvious  use  of  such  a 
seal  is,  to  keep  in  lively  remembrance  the  divine  determination 
and  promise  ;  to  impress  the  minds  of  parents  with  the  obligations 
it  imposes  on  them  ;  and  in  due  time  to  be  a  remembrancer  to  the 
children  of  the  privileges  which  the  God  of  their  fathers  has 
granted  them,  and  of  the  gracious  economy  under  which  they  are 
placed ;  and  in  this  way,  to  produce  in  their  minds  a  becoming 
sense  of  their  peculiar  obligations,  as  children  of  pious  parents. 
These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  show,  the  suitableness  of  applying 
the  appointed  seal  of  the  divine  covenant  to  children,  as  well  as  to 
parents.  Both  parents  and  children  have  a  deep  interest  in  the 
covenant,  and  its  seal  has  an  obvious  and  important  significance, 
whether  applied  to  the  former  or  to  the  latter. 

The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  God  made  a  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed ;  that  is,  that  he  made  known  what  was  his 
purpose  respecting  them;  that  he  declared  h)W  he  would  treat 
them.  But  what  was  this  purpose  of  God  ?  What  was  to  be  his 
economy,  or  the  course  of  his  administration,  towards  Abraham 
and  his  seed?  The  Scriptures  furnish  the  answer.  God  said; 
"  Thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations.  And  I  will  establish 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in 
their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  he  a  G-od  unto 
thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.     And  I  will  give  to  thee  and  to 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  423 

thy  seed  after  thee  —  all  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting 
possession ;  and  I  will  he  their  God^  Such  was  the  dertermin- 
ation  which  God  made  known ;  the  economy  which  he  had  estab- 
lished. This  economy  involved  essential  conditions  on  the  part  of 
Abraham  and  liis  seed.  And  these  conditions,  declared  in  one 
way  and  another,  were  that  they  should  walk  before  God,  and  he 
up'ight  and  obedient.  But  the  circumstance,  that  a  divine  prom- 
ise or  plan  of  proceeding  is  conditional,  rieed  not  be  supposed  to 
diminish  its  importance,  nor  to  render  it  any  the  less  proper  that  it 
should  be  marked  by  a  religious  rite. 

Still  more  specific  views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  God's  cov- 
enant with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  may  be  derived  from  other 
declarations  of  Scripture,  and  from  that  conduct  of  God's  prov- 
idence, which  is  the  best  interpreter  of  his  word.  I  shall  refer 
only  to  one  text.  Rom.  9:  4.  Here,  in  a  very  summary  way, 
the  Apostle  mentions  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  Israelites,  and 
says,  that  to  them  belonged  "  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God." 
This  agrees  with  the  representations,  elsewhere  made,  of  the  pecu- 
liar favors  which  God  bestowed  upon  that  people.  He  adopted 
them  as  his  children.  He  gave  them  a  holy  law,  written  on  tables 
of  stone,  and  a  great  variety  of  other  precepts,  moral  and  ceremo- 
nial, suited  to  their  condition.  He  raised  up  prophets  to  teach 
and  warn  them.  He  displayed  his  glory  in  the  midst  of  them ; 
made  great  and  precious  promises  to  them,  and  from  time  to  time, 
wrought  wonders  of  power  and  mercy  in  their  behalf.  Thus  the 
children  of  Israel  were  a  highly  favored  people  ;  and  the  place 
where  they  dwelt,  was  a  highly  favored  place.  Those  who  were 
bom  there  from  generation  to  generation,  were  born  in  propitious 
circumstances.  They  inherited  special  privileges.  It  was  the 
pleasure  of  God,  that  they  should  all  be  placed  under  the  opera- 
tion of  a  gracious  economy ;  should  be  taught  by  pious  parents, 
and  by  consecrated  men ;  should,  from  their  earliest  years,  hear 
what  God  had  done  for  their  fathers,  and  what  a  holy  law  he  had 
given  them  :  and  should  come  under  those  divine  influences  w'hich, 
if  cherished,  would  impart  to  the  various  privileges  they  enjoyed, 


424  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

a  saving  efficacy.  This  was  God's  establishment  respecting  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed.  This  was  his  chosen  method  of  transmitting 
the  true  rehgion  from  one  generation  to  another ;  of  continuing  a 
church  in  the  world,  and  of  training  up  his  people  for  heaven.  It 
was  a  system  of  religious  education.  The  children  of  God's  peo- 
ple were  to  be  considered  from  their  birth,  as  consecrated  to  him ; 
and,  as  soon  as  they  were  capable,  were  to  have  the  doctrines  and 
precepts  of  his  word  inculcated  upon  them,  accompanied  with  the 
pious  example  and  the  prayers  of  parents,  and  followed  by  the 
promised  blessing  of  God.  Children,  born  under  that  gracious 
economy,  were  thus,  by  their  very  birth,  brought  into  a  state 
highly  auspicious  to  their  present  and  eternal  welfare.  The  token 
of  God's  covenant,  that  is,  circumcision,  was  a  token  of  all  this 
kindness  on  his  part,  and  of  all  these  privileges,  prospects,  and 
obligations  on  the  part  of  parents  and  children. 

Now  the  divine  economy  under  the  reign  of  Christ  is,  in  all  im- 
portant respects,  the  same  as  it  was  formerly.  Children  have  the 
same  relation  to  their  pious  parents,  and  that  relation  is  of  equal 
importance  in  the  concerns  of  religion.  It  is  as  much  the  con- 
stitution of  God,  as  it  was  formerly,  that  religion  shall  be  preserved 
in  the  world,  and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another, 
chiefly  through  the  influence  of  a  pious  education.  The  children 
of  Christian  parents  are  born  into  a  state  as  favorable  as  the  chil- 
dren of  Israelitish  parents  were  :  yea  much  more  favorable.  It 
is  as  much  the  will  of  God,  as  it  was  formerly,  that  they  should  be 
piously  consecrated  to  him,  and  that  they  should  enjoy  a  religious 
education,  including  all  the  proper  forms  of  instruction  and  disci- 
pline, and  all  the  accompanying  influence  of  a  good  example  and 
of  prayer.  And  it  is  as  much  the  appointment  of  God  now,  as  it 
ever  was,  that  his  blessing  shall  attend  this  mode  of  educating 
children,  and  that  in  this  way  generally,  persons  shall  be  brought 
into  the  kingdom  of  Clirist.  This  is  the  plan  of  the  divine  con- 
duct now,  as  much  as  it  ever  was.  So  that  in  regard  to  the  great 
interests  of  man,  the  children  of  believers  are  now  brought,  by 
their  birth,  into  a  state  similar  to  that  of  the  children  of  God's 
people  in  former  times.     The  only  important  difference  is,  that 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  425 

God's  establishment,  dia&i^xtj,  ia  more  merciful  now,  —  is  frauf^ht 
with  higher  blessings,  than  formerly.  So  that  there  are  all  the 
reasons,  which  formerly  existed,  and  some  in  addition,  for  ap- 
plying to  the  children  of  pious  parents  a  religious  rite,  which  is  the 
appointed  token  of  that  gracious  economy  under  which  they  are 
placed. 

Thus,  when  we  consider  what  God's  covenant  or  plan  of  conduct 
respecting  children  was  formerly,  and  what  it  is  under  the  reign 
of  Christ ;  we  cannot  but  conclude  that  it  is  as  reasonable  and 
proper  to  apply  to  them  the  present  seal  of  the  covenant,  as  it  was 
the  former.  And  this  view  of  the  subject  is,  at  least,  sufficient  to 
expose  the  futility  of  any  presumption  against  Infant  Baptism, 
and  to  show  that  the  presumptive  arguments  are  decidedly  in  its 
favor. 

The  common  difficulty  which  meets  us  in  regard  to  this  reason- 
ing is,  that  the  transition  from  the  former  economy  to  the  latter 
implied  a  great  change,  and  that  we  cannot  reason  from  the  one 
to  the  other. 

I  readily  admit,  that  a  very  great  change  took  place,  when  the 
people  of  God  passed  from  the  Mosaic  to  the  Christian  economy ; 
—  a  change  from  obscurity  to  noonday  light ;  from  a  state  in  which 
the  Saviour  was  set  forth  in  promises  and  symbols,  to  a  state  in 
which  he  was  presented  in  all  his  glory,  as  actually  come,  and  ful- 
ly invested  with  the  office  of  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  the 
church;  —  a  change  too  respecting  the  place  and  mode  of  worship, 
the  power  of  the  motives  which  enforce  the  obligations  of  religion, 
and  the  extent  to  which  the  blessings  of  salvation  were  to  be  dif- 
fused. But  whatever  was  the  nature  of  the  change,  and  to  what- 
ever objects  it-  related ;  it  certanly  did  not  imply  any  diminution 
of  privileges  to  children,  and,  of  course,  it  could  have  no  influ- 
ence to  prevent  the  application  to  them  of  the  seal  of  the  new 
economy. 

In  many  respects,  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  reason  from  one  econ- 
omy to  the  other.  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  reason  thus  ;  and 
it  would  be  easy  to  produce  various  instances  in  which  this  must 
be  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  perfectly  proper.    For  example,  as 

36* 


426  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

it  was  the  duty  of  men  under  the  former  dispensation,  to  worship 
God,  and  as  the  worship  comprehended  confession,  thanksgiving 
and  supplication  ;  and  as  it  was  their  duty  to  love  their  neighbor 
as  themselves  ;  the  same  must  be  the  case  now.  But  why  ?  Be- 
cause the  change  which  took  place  had  no  respect  to  these  sub- 
jects. These  duties  rested  on  principles  comynon  to  both  dispen- 
sations. Just  so  it  is  with  the  duty  of  consecrating  children  to 
God  by  a  religious  rite.  This  duty  rests  on  the  natural  and  im- 
mutable relation  between  parents  and  children,  and  on  the  general 
purpose  and  promise  of  God  to  propagate  religion  and  perpetuate 
the  church,  by  sanctifying  the  seed  of  believers.  This  was  the 
divine  economy  formerly ;  and  it  is  so  now.  It  has  as  much  in- 
fluence now,  as  it  formerly  had.  Its  importance  is  above  all  con- 
ception, involving  the  rehgious  character  and  the  eternal  destinies 
of  men.  Now  the  same  token  of  this  gracious  economy,  and  of 
consecration  to  God,  was  formerly  applied  to  parents  and  to  chil- 
dren, and  was  thus  appUed  for  reasons  which  are  common  to  all 
ages.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  diiference  existing  between 
the  two  dispensations  cannot  affect  the  subject  before  us,  and  that 
it  is  as  suitable  to  apply  the  token  of  the  Christian  economy  to 
children,  as  it  formerly  was  to  apply  to  them  the  token  of  the 
Ahrahamic  economy. 

This  course  of  reasoning,  which  is  only  auxiliary  to  the  main 
argument,  was  introduced  for  the  particular  purpose  of  removing 
the  difficulties  which  have  frequently  been  felt  in  regard  to  Infant 
Baptism,  on  account  of  the  change  from  one  dispensation  to  an- 
other. This  change,  which  is  admitted  to  have  been  great  and 
extensive,  could  not  affect  the  propriety  of  consecrating  children 
to  God  by  a  religious  rite,  for  the  plain  reason,  that  it  did  not 
affect  the  principle  on  which  such  consecration  rests.  Though  it 
affected  Reform  of  consecration,  it  did  not  affect  the  propriety  of 
consecrating  children ;  because  the  Christian  economy,  of  which 
baptism  is  the  seal,  as  properly  relates  to  children,  as  that  econ- 
omy of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal.  Consequently  no  reason 
against  Infant  Baptism  can  arise  from  the  difference  between  the 
Christian  and  the  Abrahamic  economy. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  427 

The  requisition  of  faith  in  order  to  baptism,  may  be  thought 
to  be  a  proof,  that  the  application  of  baptism  was  meant  to  be 
more  limited,  than  that  of  circumcision.  But  of  whom  was  faith 
required  in  order  to  baptism?  Of  those,  evidently,  who  were 
capable  of  understanding  the  nature  of  the  requisition.  The 
command  to  believe  could  relate  to  no  other.  This  was  so  per- 
fectly obvious,  that  no  teacher  of  Christianity  could  have  any 
occasion  to  mention  it.  This  command,  or  any  other  command, 
coming  from  a  jugt  God,  must  be  understood  as  relating  to  those 
only,  who  were  capable  of  complying  with  it.  So  that  the  fact, 
stated  exactly,  was  this ;  those  who  ivere  capable  of  believing, 
that  is,  adult  persons,  tvere  required  to  believe  in  order  to  be  bap- 
tized. A  requisition  not  unlike  this,  was  made  under  the  former 
dispensation.  Adult  persons,  in  order  to  be  admitted  by  circum- 
cision into  the  society  of  God's  people,  were  required  to  renounce 
idolatry,  to  believe  in  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  to  submit  to  the 
mstitutions  and  laws  which  he  gave  by  Moses.  Such  faith  as 
this,  under  the  Mosaic  economy,  answered  to  the  faith  which  is 
required  under  the  Christian  economy.  The  requisition  of  faith, 
then,  in  order  to  baptism,  has  nothing  new  in  it,  but  this,  that  the 
faith  required  is  to  be  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  Christian 
dispensation ;  whereas  the  faith  required  before,  was  to  be  adapted 
to  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  Thus,  in  regard  to  adult  persons, 
the  case  is  very  similar  under  both  dispensations.  How  then  can 
the  fact,  that  Christ  required  adult  persons  to  believe  in  order 
to  be  baptized,  prove  that  baptism  was  to  be  more  limited  in  its 
application  than  circumcision  ? 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  circumcision  of  children  was  expressly 
commanded,  and  that,  without  this  command,  no  one  could  have 
inferred  from  the  institution  of  circumcision  for  adults,  that  chil- 
dren were  to  be  circumcised.  I  grant,  that  an  express  command 
may  have  been  necessary  at  first,  to  authorize  the  application  of 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  to  children.  And  if  baptism  had  been 
the  first  seal,  such  a  command  might  have  been  necessary  in  re- 
lation to  this.  But  the  principle  having  been  once  estabhshed,  that 
the  seal,  of  the  covenant  is  to  be  applied  to  children,  there  can  be  no 


428  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

occasion  for  the  repetition  of  a  divine  command  to  justify  an 
adherence  to  that  principle.  In  respect  to  circumcision,  an  ex- 
press command  Avas  given ;  because  circumcision  was  the  first 
rite  Avhich  was  appointed  to  be  the  seal  of  God's  covenant.  Had 
baptism  been  the  first  seal,  and  had  Infant  Baptism  been  settled 
by  divine  command,  as  infant  circumcision  was ;  and  had  the 
practice  of  God's  people  been  for  ages  conformed  to  it ;  and  had 
circumcision  been  then  introduced  in  the  place  of  baptism,  as  the 
seal  of  the  Christian  covenant ;  who  will  say  that  a  new  command 
would  have  been  necessary  to  authorize  the  circumcision  of  in- 
fants ?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  so  great  a  change  was  to  be 
made,  as  the  withholding  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant  from  the 
seed  of  behevers ;  such  a  change  would  surely  require  to  be 
authorized  by  a  new  divine  command. 

If  any  one  still  thinks,  that  Christ's  requiring  men  to  believe 
and  be  baptized,  implies  that  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  be- 
cause they  cannot  believe ;  I  ask  whether  the  same  mode  of 
interpreting  Scripture  would  not  debar  infants  from  salvation. 
"He  that  beheveth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  condemned, "  is  the  grand  principle  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Faith  is  required  in  order  to  salvation  as  much,  certainly, 
as  in  order  to  baptism.  And  this  requisition  furnishes  as  much 
reason  for  excluding  infants  from  salvation,  as  for  excluding  them 
from  baptism.  But  all  Christians  are  united  in  holding,  that  the 
requisition  of  faith  in  order  to  salvation,  cannot  be  applied  to  chil- 
dren. And  to  be  consistent,  they  must  hold,  that  the  requisition 
of  faith  in  order  to  baptism  cannot  be  applied  to  children.  The 
requisition  most  evidently  has  as  much  to  do  with  salvation  as 
with  baptisrn.  The  two  cases  then  are  alike.  Christ  requires 
men  to  believe,  in  order  to  be  saved.  But  when  he  requires  this, 
he  does  not  say,  that  infants  are  excluded  from  salvation,  because 
they  cannot  believe.  So  he  requires  faith  in  order  to  baptism.  But 
he  does  not  say,  that  infants  are  excluded  from  baptism,  because 
they  cannot  beUeve.  Thus  so  far  as  the  requisition  of  faith  is 
concerned,  there  is  no  more  propriety  in  excluding  infants  from 
haptism,  than  in  excluding  them  from  salvation.     And  if  we  admit 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  429 

that,  notwithstanding  this  requisition  of  faith,  infants  may  be 
saved;  we  must  admit,  also,  that  they  may  be  baptized.  The 
requisition  of  faith,  which  is  intended  only  for  adults,  proves 
nothing  one  way  or  the  other,  as  to  children.  The  question  of 
their  being  baptized,  or  saved,  must  be  determined  on  other 
grounds.  We  ask  not  whether  they  believe ;  for  this  they  cannot 
do  ;  but,  whether  there  are  other  reasons  for  baptizing  them,  and 
other  reasons  for  thinking  they  may  be  saved. 

The  same  principle  may  be  satisfactorily  illustrated  by  2  Thess. 
3:  10.  The  Apostle  says  ;  "  This  we  commanded,  that  if  any  one 
would  not  work,  neither  should  ho  eat. "  But  who  ever  under- 
stood this  command  as  relating  to  children  ? 

The  command  to  believe  and  be  baptized,  which  has  now  been 
considered,  is  the  most  plausible  argument  ever  advanced  against 
Infant  Baptism.  And,  if  T  mistake  not,  our  opponents  rely  upon 
it  more  than  upon  any  other.  But  they  ought  Avell  to  consider, 
that  the  mode  of  reasoning  which  they  adopt,  would  exclude  all 
infants  from  salvation.  And  they  certainly  have  good  reason  to 
pause,  before  they  admit  the  conclusiveness  of  an  argument,  which 
would  lead  to  such  fearful  consequences. 

The  import  of  Infant  Baptism  may  be  understood  from  the  pre- 
ceding discussion.  Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  God's  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  his  offspring  ;  that  is,  of  his  gracious  design  and 
promise  respecting  them.  This  design  and  promise  was,  in  brief, 
that  he  would  be  their  God.  Circumcision  signified,  that  such  was 
the  promise  of  God,  —  such  the  plan  of  administration  he  had  fixed 
upon  towards  Abraham  and  his  seed.  And  it  manifestly  implied, 
that  there  were  obligations  on  their  part,  to  love,  worship  and  obey 
him,  who  promised  to  be  their  God.  Thus  it  was  a  seal  of  God's 
promise  to  them,  and  of  their  obligations  to  him.  But  it  was  never 
intended  to  signify,  that  all  to  whom  it  was  appUed,  were  actually, 
at  the  time,  intelhgent  worshippers  and  servants  of  God.  In 
regard  to  infant  children,  this  was  impossible.  But  the  rite  did 
signify,  that,  in  process  of  time,  they  would  be  under  high  obliga- 
tions to  worship  and  serve  God,  and  that  he  would  pursue  a  course 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  conduct  towards  them,  which  would  be  suited  to  influence  them 
to  this.  As  to  those,  who  had  attained  to  mature  understanding, 
and  were  voluntary  in  receiving  the  rite  of  circumcision,  it  signi- 
fied their  readiness  to  accept  the  good  promised,  and  to  perform 
the  duties  required.  In  them  it  was  an  indication  of  right  feel- 
ing ;  a  profession  of  piety.  But  it  became  so,  not  as  the  direct 
and  necessary  import  of  the  rite,  but  from  their  voluntary  agency 
in  its  application.  So  far  as  circumcision  was  concerned,  this 
view  of  the  subject  must  be  admitted  by  all  to  be  correct.  And 
why  not  in  regard  to  baptism  ?  The  divine  economy,  though 
circumstantially  different,  is  the  same  in  substance  now,  as  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  —  the  same,  most  evidently,  so  far  as  re- 
lates to  the  connection  between  parents  and  children  and  the  high 
interests  which  that  connection  involves.  When  this  Christian 
rite  is  appHed  to  believers,  it  is  a  seal  of  the  new  dispensation 
towards  them.  And  it  signifies  their  consent  to  this  economy ; 
their  belief  of  its  truths,  and  their  readiness  to  receive  its  bless- 
ings, and  comply  with  its  obligations.  But  it  comes  to  signify 
this,  and  so  to  be  a  profession  of  piety,  not  as  the  direct  and 
necessary  import  of  baptism,  but  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  applied 
to  those,  who  have  a  voluntary  agency  in  receiving  it.  Its  gen- 
eral import,  as  a  token  of  God's  gracious  economy,  is  as  consistent 
with  its  being  applied  to  children,  as  to  men.  Its  particular  im- 
port varies  with  the  state  and  circumstances  of  those  to  whom  it 
is  apphed. 

Baptism  hy  water  may  always  be  considered  as  signifying,  that 
those,  to  whom  it  is  applied,  are  the  subjects  of  moral  pollution, 
and  need  that  spiritual  cleansing,  or  purification  from  sin,  which 
is  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  "When 
adult  believers  receive  baptism  themselves,  they  hereby  express 
their  belief,  that  they  are  by  nature  polluted  with  sin,  and  must 
be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  order  to  be  admitted  into 
heaven  ;  and  they  express  their  desire  for  such  sanctification,  and 
their  determination  to  seek  after  it,  in  the  diligent  use  of  all 
appointed  means.  When  we  present  our  infant  children  for  bap- 
tism, we  express  our  behef,  that  they  are  the  subjects  of  moral 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  431 

pollution,  and  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit  in  order  to  be  admitted 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  we  express  our  earnest  desire 
that  they  may  experience  this  spiritual  renovation,  and  our  solemn 
determination  to  labor  to  promote  it  by  fervent  prayer  to  God, 
and  by  faithful  attention  to  all  the  duties  of  Christian  parents. 
This  seems  to  me  a  perfectly  natural  and  satisfactory  view  of  what 
is  signified  by  the  baptism  of  children.  The  use  of  water  in  this 
Christian  rite  is  indeed  a  token  of  spiritual  cleansing  ;  not  always 
however  as  a  thing  actually  accomplished,  but  as  a  thing  which 
is  absolutely  necessary.  Whether  we  are  concerned  in  the  bap- 
tism of  children  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  or  as  members  of 
the  church,  we  do,  by  this  public  token,  express  our  belief,  that 
spiritual  purification  is  indispensably  necessary  for  the  children 
who  are  baptized,  and  our  determination  and  engagement  to  do 
whatever  belongs  to  us,  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  important 
end.  And  it  is  of  great  consequence  to  the  interests  of  religion, 
that  this  obvious  import  of  Infant  Baptism  should  be  often  set 
forth,  and  that  the  obligations  of  parents  and  churches  should  be 
often  explained  and  inculcated,  especially  at  the  time  of  the 
baptism. 

"  Infant  baptism  contains  a  constant  memorial  of  original  sin. 
—  Of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  being  not  merely  contracted 
but  inherent.  And  this  doctrine  of  original  corruption,  of  which 
Infant  Baptism  is  a  standing  practical  recognition,  is  one  of  funda- 
mental importance  ;  one,  I  am  satisfied,  to  inadequate  conceptions 
and  impressions  of  which  may  be  traced  all  the  principal  perver- 
sions of  the  gospel.  In  proportion  to  its  relative  importance  in 
the  system  of  Divine  truth,  is  it  of  consequence  that  it  should 
not  be  allowed  to  shp  out  of  mind.  The  baptism  of  every  child 
brings  it  to  view,  and  impresses  it.  If  in  any  case  it  should  be 
otherwise,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  ordinance,  but  in  the  power  of 
custom,  and  in  the  stupidity  and  carelessness  of  spectators,  of 
parents,  of  ministers.  It  teaches,  very  simply,  but  very  signifi- 
cantly, that,  even  from  the  womb,  children  are   the  subjects   of 

pollution ;   that  they  stand  in  need of  purification  from  the 

inherent  depravity  of  their  nature,  in  order  to  their  entering 
heaven." 


432  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

"  Whilst  Infant  Baptism  reminds  us  of  the  humbhng  doctrine 
of  original  depravity,  it  brings  before  our  minds  a  truth  of  a  dif- 
ferent kind,  —  eminently  cheering  and  encouraging,  —  namely, 
that  little  children  are  not  incapable  of  being  subjects  of  the 
spiritual  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  participating  in  its  bless- 
ings. I  need  not  set  about  proving  this  ;  because  their  capability 
is  granted  by  Baptists  themselves."  * 

Offering  up  our  children  in  baptism,  according  to  the  Christian 
formula,  implies  an  open  and  solemn  profession  that  we  ourselves 
receive,  with  cordial  faith,  what  the  Scriptures  reveal  respecting 
God,  and  that  we  dedicate  our  children  to  him,  as  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit,  with  earnest  desires  that  he  would  be  their  God, 
their  Redeemer,  and  their  Sanctifier. 

The  utility  of  positive  institutions  consists,  generally,  in  the 
moral  influence  they  exert  upon  us  ;  in  their  adaptedness  to  pro- 
mote good  affections,  and  to  excite  us  to  the  diligent  performance 
of  duty.  Now  there  is  no  institution  of  religion,  which  is  more 
evidently  suited  to  have  a  salutary  influence,  than  this.  When 
we  consecrate  our  children  to  God  in  baptism,  we  have  our  eyes 
turned  directly  to  that  glorious  Being,  to  whom  we  and  our  off- 
spring belong,  and  we  are  made  to  feel  the  perfect  reasonableness 
of  such  a  consecration.  We  look  to  God's  holy  and  merciful 
economy,  of  which  baptism  is  the  appointed  token,  and  are  im- 
pressed with  the  divine  condescension  and  goodness  manifested  in 
it,  and  the  invaluable  blessings  resulting  from  it.  The  transaction 
is  public,  and  on  this  account  is  likely  to  excite  in  us  a  more 
constant  recollection  of  the  sacred  obligations  which  bind  us  as 
parents,  and  greater  dihgence  in  performing  the  duties  we  owe 
to  our  children. 

For  the  truth  of  these  remarks,  I  make  my  appeal  to  thousands 
of  pious  parents.  They  well  l^now  how  their  hearts  have  been 
affected  with  the  love  of  God,  and  the  interests  of  the  soul,  while 
they  have  been  engaged  in  consecrating  their  children  to  God  in 
baptism ;  how  earnestly  they  have  longed  and  prayed  for  their 
*  Wardlaw's  Dessertation. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  433 

salvation ;  what  resolutions  they  have  made  to  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ;  and  how  sensible  the 
effect  of  this  transaction  has  been  upon  them  afterwards.  The 
view  they  have  taken  of  God's  gracious  promises  and  administra- 
tion proves  a  mighty  encouragement  to  earnest  endeavors  and 
prayers  for  the  good  of  their  children.  If,  for  a  time,  their  en- 
deavors and  prayers  seem  to  have  little  or  no  effect ;  still  they 
are  not  disheartened.  They  look  upon  their  children,  as  having 
been  placed  under  that  gracious  economy,  in  which  God  says  to 
them,  I ivill  he  your  God  and  the  God  of  your  seed.  They  re- 
member with  what  glorious  success  he  has  crowned  the  persevering 
endeavors  of  pious  parents,  and  how  frequently  he  has  done  this, 
after  many  years  have  passed  away  in  sorrowful  disappointment. 
Their  confidence  in  the  merciful  covenant  of  God,  which  has  been 
sealed  to  them  and  their  children  by  the  sacred  rite  of  baptism, 
bears  them  above  discouragement,  and  inspires  a  cheering,  stead- 
fast hope  of  the  salvation  of  their  offspring.  Now  it  is  evident, 
that  all  the  effect  which  this  public  and  sacred  rite  produces  upon 
pious  parents  ;  this  deep  impression  of  their  obligations  ;  this  ex- 
citement of  their  good  affections ;  their  faithful  endeavors,  and 
their  fervent,  persevering  prayers,  turn  directly  to  the  benefit  of 
their  children.  We  are  not  to  look  at  the  mere  baptism  of  a  little 
child,  and  to  confine  our  thoughts  to  the  act  itself,  or  to  the 
present  effect  of  it  upon  the  child.  We  must  view  this  transaction 
in  all  its  relations  and  consequences.  We  must  consider,  that  the 
child  is  a  rational,  immortal  being,  just  entered  on  his  probationary 
state  ;  that  his  eternal  happiness  depends  on  the  formation  of  a 
virtuous  and  holy  character  ;  and  that  his  character  depends,  in 
a  great  measure,  on  the  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed,  and 
the  moral  causes  which  act  upon  him,  in  the  first  periods  of  his 
existence.  We  must  then  consider  that  the  child,  who  is  baptized 
in  a  manner  correspondent  with  the  spirit  of  the  institution,  is, 
at  the  very  commencement  of  his  being,  brought  into  circum- 
stances highly  auspicious ;  that  he  is  placed  under  a  divine  econ- 
omy, which  secures  to  him  the  affections  and  prayers  of  parents 
and  other  Christians,  and  which  distils  upon  childhood  and  youth 
VOL.  III.  37 


434  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  dews  of  divine  grace.  He  is  brought  into  a  near  connection 
with  the  church.  He  is  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,  where 
he  is  to  receive  faithful  instruction  and  discipline,  and  to  be 
trained  to  holy  worship  and  obedience.  The  child,  who  is  offered 
up  in  baptism  by  devout  parents  and  a  devout  church,  is  placed 
in  these  circumstances,  and  is  entitled  to  these  privileges ;  the 
substance  of  which  is,  a  faithful,  Christian  education,  accompanied 
with  prayer  and  the  divine  blessing.  All  this  is  signified  by  bap- 
tism. The  design  of  the  transaction  evidently  is,  to  produce  a 
moral  effect  upon  parents  and  children ;  upon  parents  directly, 
and  upon  children  as  a  consequence. 

It  would  avail  little  to  say,  in  the  way  of  objection,  that  parents 
would  be  under  all  these  obligations,  and  would  have  sufficient 
motives  to  faithfulness,  without  such  an  ordinance  as  baptism. 
The  obvious  design  of  baptism  is,  to  cause  these  obligations  to 
be  felt  more  deeply  and  constantly ,  than  they  would  otherwise 
be,  and  to  give  greater  efficacy  to  these  motives,  than  they  would 
otherwise  have.  The  influence  of  public  rites  and  observances 
has  been  acknowledged  in  all  ages,  both  in  civil  and  rehgious  con- 
cerns. In  our  own  country,  and  in  other  countries,  they  are  kept 
up,  in  order  to  perpetuate  the  principles  of  civil  government. 
Among  the  Israelites,  they  were  established  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  to  one  generation  after  another,  a  knowledge  and  a  lively 
impression  of  the  principles  and  laws  of  their  religion.  The  hu- 
man mind  is  so  constituted,  that  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the 
truths  of  rehgion  could  be  inculcated  and  impressed  with  the  ne- 
cessary efficacy,  without  the  help  of  public  rites  and  observances. 
The  utility  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  generally  acknowledged 
to  be  great,  rests  on  the  very  same  principle,  as  that  which  gives 
importance  to  Infant  Baptism.  Thus  it  was  also  with  the  utility 
of  the  passover  and  circumcision.  And  we  may  as  well  say,  that 
the  principles  of  religion  might  have  been  effectually  taught  and 
impressed,  and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another  among 
the  posterity  of  Abraham,  without  the  passover  or  circumcision, 
or  any  of  their  sacred  rites ;  and  that  the  principles  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  might  be  effectually  taught  and  impressed,  and  its 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  435 

motives  rendered  sufficiently  powerful,  without  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  to  say  that  the  influence  of  Infant  Baptism  is  unnecessary,  and 
that  parents  will  be  as  likely  to  feel  their  obligations  and  attend 
to  their  duties  without  it,  as  with  it.  The  experience  of  the  whole 
"world  is  in  favor  of  visible  signs  and  tokens,  of  public  rites  and 
observances.  The  human  mind  requires  them,  as  means  of  incul- 
cating moral  and  religious  truth.  To  undervalue  them  would  be 
a  discredit  to  our  understanding ;  and  to  neglect  them,  an  injury 
to  our  moral  feelings. 

But  suffer  me  here  to  say,  that  the  utility  of  Infant  Baptism 
cannot  be  measured,  by  the  influence  which  it  has  actually  exerted 
upon  the  generality  of  Christians.  For  what  sacred  institution, 
and  what  divine  truth,  has  not  fallen  short  of  the  influence  which 
it  ought  to  have  upon  the  conduct  of  men  ?  The  question  is, 
what  effect  is  Infant  Baptism  designed  and  adapted  to  produce  ? 
What  has  been  its  influence  upon  those  parents,  whose  minds  have 
been  in  the  best  state ;  whose  parental  affection  has  been  most 
highly  sanctified,  and  whose  piety,  most  active  ?  And  what  will 
be  its  influence,  when  the  great  body  of  Christians  shall  come  to 
be  fully  awake  to  the  interests  of  religion,  and  shall  make  it  the 
constant  object  of  their  solicitude  and  labors  and  prayers,  that 
their  offspring  from  one  generation  to  another,  may  become  chil- 
dren of  God  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  The  value 
of  this  sacred  rite  taken  in  connection  with  the  divine  economy 
of  which  it  is  the  sign,  and  with  the  obligations  of  parents  and 
churches  which  it  is  intended  to  enforce,  cannot  be  perfectly 
known,  before  the  present  low  state  of  religious  feeling  among 
Christians  shall  give  place  to  a  more  elevated  piety,  and  to  more 
constant  and  more  faithful  exertion  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the 
rising  generation.  In  my  apprehension,  it  is  chiefly  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  unfaithfulness  of  parents  and  churches,  and  their 
failing  to  act  according  to  the  spirit  of  this  divine  ordinance, 
tiiat  it  has  so  far  fallen  into  disrepute,  and  that  any  can  feel 
themselves  justified  in  saying,  it  is  of  no  use. 

There  is  still  another  way,  in  which  children  may  experience 
the  salutary  effect  of  baptism.     When  they  come  to  adult  years 


436  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

they  may  be  induced  to  attend  to  the  duties  of  religion,  by  means 
of  the  baptism  ■which  they  received  in  infancy.  As  soon  as  a 
child  of  ours  becomes  capable  of  being  influenced  by  rational 
considerations  ;  Ave  may  address  him  in  such  a  manner  as  this :  In 
your  infancy,  we  devoted  you  to  the  service  of  your  Creator  and 
Redeemer ;  and  ive  irut  ujjon  you  the  mark  of  discipleship,  the 
mark  of  that  gracious  economy  under  which  you  were  placed  hy 
your  birth.  In  that  transaction,  zve  bound  ourselves  to  bnng  you 
up  for  God,  and  to  seek  diligently  your  eternal  happiness.  As 
you  are  now  come  to  years  of  under standiiig,  you  are  hound  to 
devote  yourself  to  Grod,  and  by  your  oivn  act,  to  confirm  what  your 
parents  did  for  you  in  your  infancy.  The  child  may  be  taught, 
that  there  is  nothing  so  conducive  to  his  highest  interest,  as  for 
him  to  choose  the  God  of  his  parents  for  Ids  God.  It  may  be 
inculcated  upon  him,  that,  by  neglecting  his  soul,  and  living  in 
sin,  he  will  be  guilty  of  casting  contempt  on  the  pious  solicitude, 
the  exertions  and  prayers  of  his  parents  ;  on  the  sacred  ordinance 
by  which  he  was  consecrated  to  the  service  of  Christ,  and  on  all 
the  obligations  laid  upon  him,  and  all  the  privileges  secured  to 
him,  by  such  an  early  consecration.  If  a  youth,  who  was  devoted 
to  God  by  baptism  in  infancy,  possesses  even  an  ordinary  degree 
of  moral  sensibility ;  considerations  like  these  must  produce  a 
powerful  effect  upon  him,  and,  through  the  divine  blessing,  may 
prove  the  means  of  his  salvation. 

The  view  which  I  have  taken  of  this  subject  is,  you  perceive, 
very  different  from  that  which  was  entertained  by  some  of  the 
early  Christian  fathers,  and  by  the  Roman  Catholic  church. 
They  attribute  to  baptism  itself  an  inherent  saving  efficacy.  They 
suppose  that  it  directly  conveys  grace  and  salvation  to  the  soul, 
and  that,  without  it,  no  one  can  be  saved.  But  I  have  repre- 
sented the  utility  and  efficacy  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  consisting 
primarily  in  the  influence  it  has  upon  the  feelings  and  conduct  of 
parents ;  and  then,  secondarily,  in  the  effect  which  parental  in- 
struction, example  and  prayer,  with  the  divine  blessing,  produce 
upon  children.  This  effect  I  have  considered  as  resulting  from 
God's  gracious  economy ;  that  is,  his  appointment  and  promise. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  437 

And  I  have  referred  and  always  would  refer  to  facts  which  occur 
in  the  course  of  divine  providence,  as  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
these  representations.  These  facts  are  striking  and  momentous, 
and  deserve  to  be  contemplated  again  and  again  with  the  Hveliest 
interest.  Behold  the  mighty  influence  of  parental  character  and 
instruction !  How  is  it  that  pagan  idolatry,  Jewish  infideUty,  and 
the  violent  superstition  of  Mohammed  are  continued  in  the  world, 
and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another  ?  What  is  it  which 
leads  us  to  expect,  that  according  to  the  common  course  of  events, 
the  children  of  pagans  will  be  pagans,  and  that  the  children  of  Mo- 
hammedans will  be  Mohammedans,  and  the  children  of  Jews,  Jews  ? 
It  is  the  general  principle,  that  the  character  of  children  is  formed 
by  parental  influence.  And  is  not  this  as  true  in  regard  to  Chris- 
tians, as  in  regard  to  any  other  class  of  men  ?  In  ordinary  cases, 
the  children  of  faithful  Christian  parents  will  be  Christians ;  and 
they  will  become  so,  by  means  of  the  influence  which  their  parents 
exert  upon  them.  Such  is  the  divine  economy.  That  children 
are  placed  under  it  is  signified  by  baptism.  And  the  apphcation 
of  baptism  to  children  is  a  suitable  expression  of  the  piety  of 
parents,  and  of  their  love  to  the  souls  of  their  offspring,  and  is  a 
powerful  means  of  exciting  them  to  recollect  and  feel  their  obli- 
gations, and  to  be  active  and  persevering  in  the  performance  of 
parental  duties.  And  ^when  the  piety  and  diligence  of  parents 
shall  rise  to  a  proper  height,  and  they  shall  address  themselves 
to  the  duties,  which  they  owe  to  their  children,  with  united  zeal 
and  prayer ;  the  true  import  of  Infant  Baptism  will  be  more  fully 
understood,  and  its  utility  acknowledged  with  more  fervent  grat^ 
itude  to  God. 

Relation  of  baptized  children  to  the  church. 

This  relation  of  children  to  the  church  is  generally  represented 
by  the  most  respectable  authors  as  infant  membership.  In  a  very 
important,  though  in  a  qualified  sense,  baptized  children  are  to 
be  considered  as  members  of  the  Christian  church ;  just  as  for- 
merly the  children  of  the  Priest  were  members  of  the  Priesthood; 
and  as  now,  all  children  that  are  born  here  are  considered  as 
members  of  our  civil  community,  entitled  to  enjoy,  as  far  as  they 

37* 


488  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

are  capable,  the  benefits  of  society,  and  in  due  time  to  become 
complete  and  active  members.  But  we  cannot  regard  infant  chil- 
dren as  members  of  the  church  in  the  full  and  complete  sense 
in  which  adult  behevers  are  members ;  for  of  this  they  are  mani- 
festly incapable.  Nor  can  it  be  implied,  that  baptized  chil- 
dren can  ever  become  members  of  the  church  in  this  complete 
sense,  on  any  lower  terms,  than  those  which  are  prescribed  for 
others.  They  can  sustain  this  high  relation  only  on  the  condition 
of  their  exhibiting  the  character  of  Christian  piety.  Still  it  is 
clear  that  baptized  children  are  placed  in  a  real  and  very  endear- 
ing relation  to  the  church.  And  although  they  are  not  at  present 
capable  of  being  members  in  the  full  and  active  sense ;  they  are 
evidently  capable  even  now  of  enjoying  some  of  the  previous 
benefits  resulting  from  their  condition  as  children  of  .the  church  ; 
and  they  will  be  more  and  more  capable  of  enjoying  these  ben- 
efits as  they  advance  in  age ;  and  at  length,  unless  their  own 
impenitence  and  wickedness  prevent,  they  will  become  complete 
and  active  members  of  the  church.  Such  is  the  design  of  the 
economy  under  which  they  are  placed ;  such  the  end  of  their 
being  consecrated  to  God,  and  placed  in  the  school  of  the  church. 
And  we  may  hope  that,  through  divine  mercy,  this  will  ordinarily 
be  the  happy  result. 

To  avoid  as  far  as  may  be  the  difiiculties  which  attend  this 
subject,  we  must  consider  the  relation  of  baptized  children  to  the 
church  to  be  such,  and  only  such,  as  they  are  capable  of  sus- 
taining. At  fiirst,  they  are  merely  children  of  the  church;  that 
is,  children  of  those  who  are  members  of  the  church.  The  priv- 
ileges which  belong  to  them  at  this  period  are  chiefly  prospective. 
After  they  become  capable  of  receiving  instruction,  they  stand 
in  the  relation  of  catechumens,  —  young  persons  who  are  in  a 
course  of  discipline  and  training  for  the  service  of  Christ.  Here 
the  advantages  of  their  condition  begin  to  appear.  As  children 
consecrated  to  God,  they  are  brought  under  a  system  of  means 
suited  in  the  highest  degree  to  promote  their  salvation.  If  through 
the  divine  blessing  these  means  prove  effectual,  they  become  de- 
voted servants  of  Christ,  and  complete  members  in  due  form  of 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  439 

his  spiritual  kingdom  ;  that  is  ;  they  come  to  be  just  -what  it  was 
intended  in  their  baptism  that  they  should  b^.  Thus  the  relation  of 
baptized  children  to  the  church  is  not  an  imaginary  or  unin- 
telligible relation,  but  one  which  is  real  and  obvious,  and  which 
Bccures  to  them  the  privileges  of  that  gracious  dispensation  under 
which  they  are  placed,  and  gives  them  a  special  prospect  of 
obtaining  its  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings. 

The  views  I  have  advanced  are  in  accordance  with  the  belief  of 
the  Puritan  churches  of  New  England  from  the  beginning.  I  shall 
select  a  few  passages  from  the  works  of  the  earlier  and  later  Pu- 
ritans to  show  this.  In  1643  the  elders  of  the  several  churches 
of  New  England  spoke  thus ;  "  Infants  with  us  are  admitted 
members  in  and  with  their  parents,  so  as  to  be  admitted  to  all 
church  privileges  of  which  infants  are  capable.^'  They  add ; 
"  We  fully  approve  the  practice  of  the  reform  churches,  among 
whom  it  is  the  manner  to  admit  children,  baptized  in  their  infancy, 
to  the  Lord's  table,  by  public  profession  of  their  faith  and  en- 
tering into  covenant."  The  same  is  asserted  in  the  Cambridge 
Platform.  —  "The  like  trial,"  that  is,  a  trial  of  their  Christian 
character,  "is  to  be  required  from  such  members  of  the  church 
as  were  born  in  the  same,  or  received  their  membership  and  were 
baptized  in  their  infancy  or  minority,  —  when  being  grown  up 
unto  years  of  discretion,  they  shall  desire  to  be  made  partakers 
of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  unto  which,  because  holy  things  must  not 
be  given  to  the  unworthy,  therefore  it  is  requisite  that  these  as 
well  as  others  should  come  to  their  trial  and  examination  and 
manifest  their  faith  and  repentance  by  an  open  profession  thereof, 
before  they  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  otherwise  not 
to  be  admitted.  Yet  these  church  members  that  were  so  bom, 
or  received  in  their  childhood,  before  they  are  capable  of  being 
made  partakers  of  the  communion,  have  many  privileges  which 
others  have  not ;  they  are  in  covenant  with  God,  and  have  the 
seal  thereof  upon  them,  namely,  baptism ;  and  so  if  not  regen- 
erated, yet  are  in  a  more  hopeful  way  of  attaining  regenerating 
grace,  and  all  the  spiritual  blessings  both  of  the  covenant  and 
the  seal ;  they  are  also  under  church  watch,  and  consequently 


440  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

subject  to  the  reprehensions,  admonitions  and  censures  thereof, 
for  their  healing  and  amendment  as  need  shall  require." 

Shepard  of  Cambridge  says  ;  "  Hereby  God  gives  parents  some 
comfortable  hope  of  their  children's  salvation,  because  they  are 
within  the  pale  of  the  visible  church. '"  And  he  thinks  pious 
parents  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  God  will  save  their  children, 
if  they  die  in  infancy,  or  that  he  will  do  them  good  if  they  live. 
The  Synod  of  1662  also  held  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
members  of  the  visible  church ;  but  that  they  are  "  not  to  be 
admitted  to  full  communion  without  such  further  qualifications 
as  the  word  of  God  requires."  Edwards  considered  baptized 
children  to  be  truly  members  of  the  church,  but  not  in  complete 
standing,  unless  they  become  by  profession  and  in  the  judgment 
of  the  church  godly  or  gracious  persons. 

It  was  then  the  general  belief  of  the  early  Puritans  of  New 
England,  and  is  now  the  general  belief  of  Congregationalists  and 
Presbyterians,  that  baptized  children  are  really,  in  a  qualified 
sense,  members  of  the  church,  but  that  they  are  not  to  be 
considered  as  complete  and  active  members,  entitled  to  full  com- 
munion and  to  baptism  for  their  offspring,  before  they  give  evidence 
that  they  possess  repentance  for  sin  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Duties  of  parents  and  the  church   towards  baptized  children. 

On  this  subject,  which  is  of  the  highest  practical  importance, 
my  remarks  must  be  very  summary. 

When  we  dedicate  our  infant  children  to  God  in  baptism,  we 
should  consider  them  as  rational  and  moral  beings  just  commen- 
cing an  endless  existence.  Instead  of  confining  our  thoughts  to 
their  bodily  wants  and  their  earthly  interests,  we  should  direct 
our  attention  chiefly  to  the  worth  of  their  immortal  souls,  to  the 
state  of  moral  degeneracy  and  ruin  into  which  they  are  brought 
by  their  natural  birth,  and  to  the  grace  of  God  which  has  pro- 
vided deliverance  and  salvation  for  them ;  and  then  we  should 
draw  near  to  the  God  of  mercy  with  strong  desire  and  fervent 
prayer,  beseeching  him  that  these  dear  children,  who  are  destined 
to  live  forever  in  heaven,  or  in  hell,  may  inherit  the  blessings  of 
the  everlasting  covenant  j  and  that  m  the  morning  of  their  exia- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  441 

tence,  they  may  be  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  solemn 
transaction  we  should  consecrate  ourselves  anew  to  the  service 
of  God,  and  resolve  humbly,  but  firmly,  to  be  faithful  to  our 
children. 

The  general  duty  of  parents  and  of  the  church,  is  the  same  ; 
namely ;  such  a  course  of  pious  instruction  and  discipline,  such 
an  example  of  holiness,  and  such  fervent  prayer  both  in  public 
and  private,  as  are  suited  to  promote  the  salvation  of  the  rising 
age,  and  to  transmit  the  Christian  religion,  with  all  its  institutions 
and  blessings  to  future  generations.  This  duty  belongs  primarily 
to  parents.  And  the  church  is  to  seek  the  good  of  the  children 
chiefly  through  the  faithfulness  and  piety  of  the  parents.  In 
every  thing  which  is  important  to  the  children,  the  parents  are 
to  take  the  lead.  But  their  pious  efforts  are  to  be  encouraged 
and  sustained  by  the  whole  body  of  Christians  with  whom  they 
are  associated.  These  are  all  under  obligation  to  cherish  a  lively 
interest  in  baptized  children,  and  with  unwearied  diligence  to 
labor  for  their  good ;  always  looking  to  God  for  those  spiritual 
blessings  which  result  from  his  gracious  covenant. 

It  is  impossible  for  me,  in  this  place,  to  give  a  particular  enu- 
meration of  the  methods,  which  ought  to  be  pursued  by  parents 
and  by  the  church,  for  the  welfare  of  children.  I  shall  only  say, 
that  our  benevolent  efforts  are  to  be  made  in  various  ways,  and 
to  be  continued  so  long  as  there  is  any  hope  of  success.  And 
why  should  we  abandon  such  a  hope,  while  the  life  of  our  children 
continues  ? 

On  the  question,  whether  the  church  ought  in  any  case,  to 
cut  off  those,  who  give  evidence  of  determined  impiety,  by  a 
public  act,  there  have  been  various  opinions.  That  view  of  the  sub- 
ject which  I  have  found  the  most  satisfactory,  is  briefly  as  follows. 
The  church  is  to  join  with  parents  in  administering  instruction, 
admonition  and  warning  to  children  and  youth  in  the  most 
discreet,  affectionate,  and  faithful  manner ;  and  to  do  this  per- 
severingly.  In  judging  of  the  reasons  which  ought  to  encourage 
us  to  exertion,  we  are  not  to  attend  chiefly  to  present  appear- 
ances ;  but  are  to  consider  the  forbearance  and  long  suffering  of 


442  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

God,  and  the  multiplied  instances  in  which  his  grace  has  visited 
those  who  had  long  lived  in  sin,  and  who,  in  human  apprehension, 
had  heen  fitted  for  destruction.  And  if  those  who  have  been 
devoted  to  God  in  baptism,  wander  far  and  long  from  the  path 
of  duty,  and  show  fearful  symptoms  of  obduracy ;  we  are  not 
quickly  to  despair  of  their  salvation,  but  are  to  follow  them  with 
every  effort  which  the  sincerest  love  can  dictate.  And  when  no 
other  effort  seems  to  promise  any  good,  we  aire  to  abound  in  prayer, 
relying  on  the  infinite  grace  of  God,  and  earnestly  hoping  that 
our  prayers  will  prevail,  and  that  our  children  will  at  length  be 
persuaded  to  consider  their  ways  and  turn  to  the  Lord. 

It  is,  in  my  view,  utterly  inexpedient  to  attempt  to  fix  upon 
any  particular  age,  at  which  those  who  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
and  who  exhibit  no  evidence  of  piety,  are  to  be  abandoned  by 
the  church,  as  those  for  whom  no  further  efforts  ought  to  be  made. 
For  suppose  you  fix  upon  the  age  of  eighteen,  or  twenty,  or 
twenty-one :  who  can  be  sure  that  a  youth  at  that  age,  though 
without  any  evidence  of  regeneration,  may  not  be  in  a  state  of 
mind,  which  is  more  susceptible  of  good  impressions,  and  which 
affords  more  hope  of  salvation,  than  at  any  period  of  his  Ufe 
before  ?  Now  if  any  person  should  be  in  this  state,  and  the 
church  should  adopt  a  principle  like  what  I  have  referred  to ; 
they  must  forthwith  exclude  such  a  person  from  all  the  advan- 
tages of  their  Christian  friendship ;  and  they  must  do  this  at  the 
very  time,  when  those  advantages  would  be  most  highly  prized. 
How  directly  would  such  a  principle  oppose  all  the  feelings  of 
Christian  benevolence  and  compassion !  And  what  havoc  would 
it  make  of  the  interests  of  the  soul ! 

To  conclude.  The  day  of  Zion's  glory  draws  near.  And  when 
that  happy  day  arrives,  a  clearer  light  will  shine  upon  the  minda 
of  God's  people,  as  to  the  principles  and  rites  of  Christianity. 
The  duties  of  parents  to  their  children  will  be  more  correctly 
understood,  and  more  diligently  and  successfully  performed.  Di- 
vision and  strife  will  cease  ;  and  those  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  will  be  of  one  mind.  The  shortest  and  best  way,  there- 
fore, to  solve  our  doubts,  and  settle  our  differences,  is,  to  labor 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  443 

unitedly  and  earnestly  to  hasten  the  arrival  of  that  blessed  day, 
■when  a  brighter  sun  will  arise  upon  the  church  and  chase  away 
all  the  shades  of  night.  Then  Christians,  having  a  more  perfect 
illumination,  and  being  united  in  judgment  and  feeling,  will  more 
justly  prize  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  economy,  and  will 
combine  their  prayers  and  efforts  to  transmit  those  blessings  from 
one  generation  to  another,  and  to  promote  the  increasing  and  per- 
petual prosperity  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 


LECTURE     CXVIII. 


FORM  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.      CLOSING  REMARKS. 

The  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  has  no  necessary  connection  with 
the  mode  of  Baptism.  Christians  who  baptize  by  immersion,  as 
■well  as  those  who  baptize  in  other  ways,  may  apply  baptism  to  in- 
fants, and  in  numberless  instances  have  done  it.  While,  on  the 
other  hand,  those  who  administer  baptism  by  sprinkling,  as  well  as 
those  who  use  immersion,  may  confine  it  to  believers.  If  we  were 
now  convinced,  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode,  it  Avould 
make  no  difference  in  our  behef,  as  to  the  duty  of  Infant  Baptism. 

In  this  Lecture,  I  propose  to  suggest,  under  two  propositions, 
the  principal  thoughts  which  have  occurred  to  me  on  the  manner 
of  performing  this  rite. 

First.  It  cannot  he  certainly  determined  from  the  New  Testa- 
merit,  that  baptism  was  administered  hy  immersion. 

What  declaration  is  there  in  the  New  Testament,  that  every 
one  who  was  baptized  was  cornpletely  immersed  in  water  ?  And 
what  command  is  there  of  Christ  or  his  apostles,  expressly  re- 
quiring that  Christians  should  be  baptized  by  total  immersion  ? 
The  manner  of  various  purifications  and  other  rites,  under  the 
Mosaic  economy,  was  exactly  described;  and  thus  it  was  made 
evident,  that  God  would  have  those  rites  executed  in  one  precise 
form.  But  the  particular  manner  of  administering  baptism  is  no- 
where described. 

It  cannot  be  certainly  determined,  that  total  immersion  was  the 
only  mode  of  baptism  from  the  signification  of  ^anri^a,  and  the 
nouns  derived  from  it. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  445 

Though  it  might  be  supposed  that  ^utztiXm,  being  a  derivative 
from  ^dnT03,  Avould  have  a  less  definite  and  forcible  meaning  than  the 
original ;  thej  seem  to  be  often  used  in  the  same  sense.  But  a 
total  immersion  is  not  necessarily  signified  bj  either.  This  is 
perfectly  evident  from  the  New  Testament.  First,  as  to  ^anrco. 
Matt.  26:  23.  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish  ;" 
f|M/3«i/'a? — rijv  xeIqu.  Mark  has  it,  d  ifi^aTzzofisvos,  "  he  that  dip- 
peth with  me  in  the  dish."  Now  whatever  liquid  the  dish  con- 
tained, it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  Judas  plunged  his  hand  all 
over  in  that  liquid.  Nothing  more  can  be  meant,  than  that  he 
took  the  bitter  herbs  which  were  eaten  at  the  Passover,  or  other 
articles  of  food,  and  with  his  fingers  dipped  them  in  the  sauce 
prepared.  And  yet  it  is  said  by  Matthew,  that  Judas  dipped  his 
hand,  and  by  Mark,  that  he  himself  dipjoed  in  the  dish.  And  as 
to  §anTiXo3,  baptize  ;  —  the  word  does  indeed  signify  to  immerse 
or  dip  in  water ;  but  it  also  signifies  to  ivash,  and  to  wash  in 
different  ways.  It  is  said,  1  Cor.  10:  2,  that  the  Israelites  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  This  does 
not  mean  that  they  were  plunged  or  immersed  in  the  cloud  or  the 
sea  —  for  they  went  through  "  on  dry  ground."  The  most  that 
can  be  intended  by  the  expression  is,  that  they  were  sprinkled 
or  wet  from  the  cloud  or  from  the  spray  of  the  sea  as  they  passed 
through.  The  Apostle  however  had  a  moral  or  spiritual  meaning, 
as  I  shall  notice  soon.  "  Divers  washings  "  are  mentioned  Heb.  9: 
10.  The  original  is  SiacfOQoi^  ^cc7iriG(io7g,  divers  baptisms.  These 
were  not  all  performed  in  one  way ;  and  certainly  not  by  immer- 
sion. The  adjectvie  dtd(poQog  signifies  different,  of  various  kinds, 
dissimilar;  as  in  Rom.  12:  6.  The  divers  baptisms  or  ablutions, 
mentioned  Heb.  9: 10,  doubtless  included  all  the  different  ablutions, 
or  ceremonial  cleansings  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law.  These 
were  performed  in  different  ways,  but  chiefly  by  sprinkling  con- 
secrated loater.  The  word  ^anriafiog,  baptism,  is  used  with  great 
latitude  of  signification  in  Mark  7:  4.  The  Evangelist  says,  the 
Pharisees  hold  many  other  usages,  "  as  the  baptism  of  cups,  and 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  beds  or  couches."  The  common 
version  has  tables.     But  the  word  kXivti  uniformly  signifies  a  couch 

VOL.  III.  38 


446  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

to  sleep  on,  or  to  recline  upon  at  meals.  Now  the  hapHsm,  or 
ceremonial  purification  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and 
couches,  were  doubtless  performed  in  different  ways.  Cups  and 
pots  and  brazen  vessels  might  possibly  be  immersed  all  over  in 
water ;  though  this  is  not  probable.  But  to  suppose  that  beds,  or 
couches,  were  immersed  in  the  same  way  would  be  unreasonable, 
especially  since  one  of  the  prescribed  modes  of  ceremonial  purifi- 
cation, and  indeed  the  most  common  mode,  was,  the  sprinkling  of 
consecrated  water. 

Since  then  it  appears,  that  ^anriafiog,  baptism,  when  used  to 
denote  ceremonial  purification,  did  not  by  any  means  signify  im- 
mersion exclusively,  and  generally  signified  other  modes  of  puri- 
fication ;  why  should  we  suppose  that  the  word  ^aTTti^co,  always 
signifies  to  immerse  when  used  to  denote  a  Christian  rite  ?  If  bap- 
tism was  performed  in  different  ways  under  the  former  dispensation  ; 
how  can  we  determine,  merely  from  the  use  of  the  word,  that  it  is 
not  to  be  performed  in  different  ways  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation ?  What  is  there  in  the  Christian  religion  which  would  pre- 
vent a  word  from  being  used  with  as  much  latitude  of  signification, 
as  it  was  under  the  Mosaic  economy  ? 

And  even  if  ^anriXoo  always  signified  to  dip  or  immerse  all  over 
in  water,  when  applied  to  other  subjects,  —  which  is  not  the  case, 
—  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  it  has  this  signification,  when 
applied  to  the  Christian  rite  of  baptism.  There  may  be  sufficient 
reasons,  why  a  religious  rite,  though  denoted  by  a  word  in  common 
use,  should  not  be  performed  in  a  manner  exactly  in  conformity 
with  the  common  signification  of  that  word.  This  we  well  know  is 
the  case  with  the  word  which  denotes  the  other  Christian  ordi- 
nance. The  word  Supper  in  English,  and  deinvov  in  Greek,  have 
a  very  different  sense  when  applied  to  that  institution,  from  what 
they  have  in  ordinary  cases.  Eating  a  morsel  of  bread  does  not 
constitute  a  supper,  a  principal  meal,  although  this  last  is  the 
common  signification  of  Sdnvov.  But  in  this  religious  rite,  eating 
a  small  morsel  of  bread  is  called  a  Supper.  1  Cor.  11:  20.  And 
the  Apostle  charged  the  Corinthians  with  abusing  the  ordinance, 
because  they  made  use  of  more  food,  than  the  design  of  the  ordi- 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  447 

nance  required.  Now  if  the  word  which  denotes  one  Christian 
rite,  has  a  sense  so  widely  different  from  its  usual  sense ;  why 
may  it  not  be  so  with  the  word,  which  denotes  the  other  Christian 
rite  ?  As  deTnvov,  in  reference  to  one  rite,  signifies  not  a  usual 
meal,  but  only  a  ver^  small  quantity  of  bread;  why  may  not 
§annXto,  in  reference  to  the  other  rite,  signify,  not  a  complete 
dipping  or  washing,  but  the  application  of  water  in  a  small  degree  ? 
This  would  present  the  two  institutions  in  the  same  light.  In  the 
first ;  as  bread  and  wine  are  used,  not  to  nourish  and  invigorate 
the  body,  but,  as  mere  symbols,  for  spiritual  purposes,  or,  as  signs 
of  spiritual  blessings  ;  a  very  small  quantity  is  sufficient.  Indeed 
the  Apostle  decides,  that  a  small  quantity  is  better  suited  to  the 
ends  of  the  institution,  than  a  larger  quantity.  So  in  the  other ; 
as  water  is  used,  not  to  cleanse  the  body,  but  merely  as  a  sign  of 
spiritual  purification,  a  small  quantity  of  water  is  sufficient ;  —  as 
sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this  ordinance,  as  a  small  quantity  of 
bread  and  wine  is  for  the  purposes  of  the  other.  The  nourishment 
of  the  body  in  the  one  case,  and  the  cleansing  of  it  in  the  other, 
being  no  part  of  the  end  to  be  answered  ;  a  large  quantity  either 
of  bread  or  of  water  can  be  of  no  use. 

I  shall  now  endeavor  to  show,  that  the  circumstances^  which  at- 
tended the  several  instances  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, do  not  prove  that  immersion  is  either  the  only  mode,  or  the 
most  proper  and  scriptural  mode. 

The  circumstance  mentioned  John  3:  23,  does  not  prove  this. 
"  John  was  baptizing  in  iEnon,  because  there  was  much  tvater 
ihere.^^  In  such  a  country  as  Palestine,  John  found  it  of  special 
importance,  (as  any  Christian  missionary  would  at  the  present 
day,)  to  collect  the  multitude  of  people  who  resorted  to  him  for 
instruction  and  baptism,  in  a  place,  where  there  was  an  abundant 
supply  of  water.  This  he  knew  to  be  necessary  for  their  accom- 
modation, and  even  their  comfortable  subsistence.  So  that  there 
is  not  the  least  need  of  supposing,  that  the  mention  of  much  water, 
or  many  springs  or  streams  of  water,  vdara  jToXld,  had  any  refer- 
ence to  the  particular  mode  of  baptism.  Whatever  the  mode 
might  have  been,  a  large  supply  of  water  was  indispensable  to 


448  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

such  a  concourse  of  people  ;  and  such  a  supply  could  be  obtained 
in  only  a  few  places  in  that  country.  And  who  can  suppose  the 
waters  of  ^non  were  resorted  to  for  the  simple  purpose  of  bap- 
tizing, when  three  thousand  were,  in  one  day,  baptized  by  the 
apostles  even  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  driest  season  of  the  year  ? 

That  total  immersion  was  the  mode  of  baptism  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  circumstance  mentioned  Matt.  3:  16,  that  Jesus,  when 
he  was  baptized  of  John  in  the  river  Jordan,  ivent  up  straightway 
out  of  the  ivater.  The  preposition  dno  generally  signifies  from. 
"  He  went  up  from  the  water  ;  "  —  an  expression  perfectly  natu- 
ral and  proper,  on  supposition  that  he  had  only  gone  into  the  river 
where  the  water  was  a  few  inches  deep,  or  that  he  had  gone 
merely  to  the  edge  of  the  river,  without  stepping  into  the  water  at 
all.  It  will  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  river  Jordan  had  banks  of 
considerable  height  above  the  water,  except  when  it  was  so  swollen 
by  the  melted  snows  of  Antilibanus,  as  to  fill  its  upper  channel. 
Of  course,  Jesus  must  have  ascended,  or  gone  up  an  ascent,  when 
lie  left  the  water,  whether  he  had  been  in  the  water  so  as  to  be 
immersed,  or  had  been  only  to  the  margin  of  the  water. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made  respecting  the  baptism  of  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch.  Acts  8:  38.  "  They  went  down  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  etc."  Every  one  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  language  knows,  that  the  passage  may  be  just  as 
well  rendered,  "  they  descended  to  the  water,  and  ascended  from 
it."  Besides,  it  has  often  been  remarked  that,  as  it  is  said  of  both 
Phihp  and  the  eunuch,  "  they  went  down  into  the  water ;  "  the 
mere  circumstance  of  going  into  the  water  no  more  proves  that  the 
eunuch  was  immersed,  than  it  proves  that  Philip  was. 

It  was  evident  then  the  argument  above  mentioned  in  favor  of 
immersion  from  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch, 
vanishes  on  the  slightest  examination,  being  founded  on  the  mere 
sound  of  the  words  in  the  Common  Version. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  baptism  of  the  jailer  equally 
fail  of  proving  that  he  was  baptized  by  immersion.  Acts  16:  19 
—39. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  449 

In  the  first  place,  he  was  baptized  in  the  night.  Secondly  ;  he 
was  evidently  baptized  in  the  outer  prison.  Paul  and  Silas  were 
thrust  into  the  inner  prison  or  dungeon.  After  the  earthquake, 
the  jailer  brought  them  out ;  that  is,  out  of  the  dungeon,  but 
clearly,  not  out  of  the  limits  of  the  prison.  There  Paul  taught 
him  and  his  household  ;  and  there,  in  all  probability,  he  baptized 
them.  Thirdly;  after  the  jailer  professed  to  believe,  he  was  bap- 
tized immediately.  These  three  circumstances,  namely,  his  being 
baptized  at  such  a  time,  in  such  a  place,  and  immediately  after 
professing  to  believe,  are  very  far  from  proving  that  immersion 
was  the  mode  of  baptism.  They  rather  prove  the  contrary.  —  If 
any  one  should  say,  there  was  probably  a  stream  or  fountain  of 
water  in  the  prison,  or  a  bath  filled  with  water,  sufficient  for  bap- 
tizing by  immersion  ;  I  would  merely  ask,  what  evidence  he  finds 
of  this  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

Nor  can  it  be  proved  that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  baptism 
from  the  account  given.  Acts  x,  of  the  baptism  of  those  who  were 
converted  at  the  house  of  Cornelius. 

After  Peter  had  preached,  and  the  gentiles  believed,  and  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost ;  Peter  said  :  "  Can  any  man /or^i'c?  water 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized  ?"  It  is  most  natural  to  under- 
stand this  to  mean,  can  any  man  forbid  ivater  to  be  brought  ?  It 
is  far  less  natural  to  understand  it  to  mean,  can  any  man  forbid 
us  to  go  out  to  a  river  or  fountain  of  water?  How  can  this 
account  be  thought  by  any  one  to  favor  the  idea  of  baptizing  by 
immersion  ? 

And  what  evidence  of  this  mode  of  baptizing  can  be  derived 
from  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  converts,  as  related  in 
Acts  ii.  The  place  of  those  numerous  baptisms  was  not  by  the 
river  Jordan,  nor  at  ^non  where  there  was  much  water,  but  at 
Jerusalem.  It  was  too  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  which  was  about 
the  twentieth  of  May.  At,  that  season,  which  was  summer  at 
Jerusalem,  there  was  no  rain.  The  brook  Kidron  was  doubtless 
dry.  And  there  was  no  natural  fountain  of  water  in  Jerusalem, 
or  near  it,  except  the  pool  of  Siloam,  or  Siloah.  This  is  "  the 
only  fountain,  whose  waters  gladdened  the  city."     Such  having 

38* 


450  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

been  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is  there  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing, that  the  apostles  found  places  where  they  could  baptize 
three  thousand  in  one  day  by  immersion  ?  All  the  apostles  were 
undoubtedly  engaged  in  baptizing  at  the  same  time.  Had  they 
baptized  by  immersion,  they  must  probably  have  made  use  of  sepa- 
rate tanks,  cisterns,  or  bathing  places  in  private  houses.  But  is 
there  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  they  divided  themselves  into 
so  many  different  companies  for  the  purpose  of  administering  the 
rite  of  baptism  ?  And  is  there  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  they 
had  access  to  so  many  bathing  places  ?  These  doubtless  were 
confined  to  the  houses  of  the  more  wealthy ;  among  whom  few 
could  at  any  time  be  found  at  Jerusalem,  who  were  disposed  in 
any  way  to  befriend  the  cause  of  Christ.  And  what  intimation  is 
there,  that  the  apostles  made  use  of  such  bathing  places  for  the 
purpose  of  baptizing  the  three  thousand  converts  ?  And  what 
reason  have  we  to  suppose,  that  such  a  multitude,  who  were  sud- 
denly collected  from  various  regions,  and  who,  we  must  presume, 
were  generally  poor,  had  such  changes  of  raiment,  as  would  have 
been  necessary  for  baptizing  by  immersion  ? 

But  there  is  still  another  difficulty.  It  appears  exceedingly 
improbable,  that  the  apostles  could  have  baptized  such  a  number 
by  immersion  in  so  short  a  time.  Before  they  began  to  baptize, 
;all  the  other  business  mentioned  in  the  narrative  had  been  accom- 
plished. The  apostles  had  met  together  in  one  place.  The  Holy 
Spirit  had  been  poured  out  upon  them ;  so  that  they  declared  the 
wonderful  works  of  God  to  people  of  many  different  countries,  in 
their  own  languages.  The  powerful  effects  produced  by  their 
preaching  had  been  noticed.  Heavy  accusations  had  been  brought 
against  tliem.  Peter  had  undertaken  their  defence,  and  had  rea- 
soned with  them  largely  from  the  holy  Scriptures.  Multitudes  had 
been  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  inquired  what  they  should  do  to 
be  saved.  Peter  had  taught  them  the  way  of  salvation.  What  is 
related.  Acts  ii.  must  be  considered  as  a  very  brief  outhne  of  the 
instruction  he  gave  them  ;  as  appears  from  verse  40,  Now  all 
those  miraculous  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  all  those  discourses 
of  the  apostles  to  people  of  many  different  countries ;  all  the  agita- 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  451 

tlons  and  differences  of  opinion  which  took  place  among  such  a 
multitude ;  the  discourse  of  Peter ;  the  convictions  and  anxious 
inquiries  of  three  thousand  souls,  with  the  particular  instructions 
given  them  in  regard  to  the  way  of  salvation  and  the  duties  of  a 
holy  life,  —  all  these  must  have  occupied  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  day.  It  was  the  third  hour,  that  is,  nine  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, when  some  of  the  people,  after  having  seen  the  effects  pro- 
duced by  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  accused  the  apostles  of  being 
unduly  excited  by  new  wine.  What  has  been  mentioned  could 
not  have  taken  place  in  less  than  half  the  day  ;  and  they  certainly 
could  not  have  had  more  than  half  the  day  left  for  baptizing.  In- 
deed I  can  hardly  bring  myself  to  believe  that  they  devoted  so 
much  as  half  the  day  to  this  ritual  service.  But  let  it  be  supposed 
that  they  baptized  three  thousand  in  five  hours.  This  would  make 
six  hundred  an  hour ;  and  for  each  apostle,  fifty  an  hour,  or  two 
hundred  and  fifty  in  five  hours ;  that  is,  but  little  short  of  one  a 
minute  for  each  apostle,  through  the  whole  of  that  time.  Accor- 
ding to  this  calculation,  who  can  suppose  they  were  baptized  by 
immersion,  without  supposing  at  the  same  time,  that  God  worked 
wonders  in  this,  as  in  other  occurrences  of  that  memorable  day, 
and  that  he  miraculously  multiplied  the  hours  and  minutes,  as  he 
had  on  another  occasion  multiplied  the  loaves  and  fishes  ? 

There  are  two  places  in  the  epistles,  which  contain  allusions  to 
the  rite  of  baptism,  and  which  have  been  thought  by  some  to  prove 
that  immersion  was  the  mode.  Rom.  6:  3,  4.  Col.  2:  12.  In 
these  texts,  believers  are  said  to  be  buried  with  Christ  in,  or  5y 
haptism.  I  remark,  first,  that  the  language  is  figurative.  In  this 
all  are  agreed.  Secondly  :  The  word  avvEzdcptjfiev,  we  were  huHed, 
does  not  appertain  to  living  men,  but  to  dead  men  ;  not  to  water, 
but  to  earth.  It  does  not  mean,  we  were  immersed,  or  j^^unged 
in  water,  but,  as  dead  bodies,  we  were  interred  or  covered  up  in  a 
grave,  or  laid  in  a  tomb.  "  The  Greek  word,  cvfETdqirjfisv,  we 
were  buried  with  him,  cannot  mean  water  baptism ;  for  in  what  part 
of  the  Bible  is  being  washed  or  bathed  in  water,  an  emblem  of  death 
or  interment  f  In  the  Jewish  ceremonies,  it  is  always  an  emblem 
of  purification,  not  of  death.     The  Baptists  greatly  mistake  the 


452  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

force  of  this  text."*  The  figure  of  speech  is  the  same,  as  in  the 
expressions  used  in  connection  with  this,  in  "which  Christians  are 
said  to  be  crucified  and  dead.  It  designates  their  character. 
They  are  crucified  to  the  world;  dead  to  sin;  yea,  dead  and 
buried.  Now  this  mortified  temper  of  Christians,  and  their  con- 
formity with  Christ,  is  signified  by  baptism ;  and  equally  so,  what- 
ever may  be  the  mode  of  baptism.  According  to  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Apostle  in  the  context,  it  is  as  true  that  believers  are 
crucified  with  Christ  and  dead  with  Christ  in  baptism,  as  that  they 
are  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  And  how  does  it  appear  jfrom 
the  language  employed  in  these  passages,  that  baptism  has  any 
more  resemblance  to  Christ's  burial,  than  to  his  crucifixion  and 
death  ? 

In  Gal.  3:  27,  the  Apostle  says ;  "  As  many  of  you  a^  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  ]}ut  on  Christ."  Here  the  meta- 
phor is  taken  from  the  putting  on  of  clothes.  Believers  have  put 
on  Christ ;  have  assumed  his  character ;  have  invested,  or  clothed 
themselves  with  his  moral  excellence,  as  one  covers  himself  with  a 
garment.  And  this  is  signified  by  their  being  baptized  into 
Christ.  But  who  would  ever  think  of  inferring  from  this,  that  the 
mode  of  baptism  must  have  a  resemblance  to  putting  on  clothes  ? 
And  yet  this  would  be  just  as  proper  as  to  argue  from  the  other 
passages,  that,  the  mode  of  baptism  must  have  a  resemblance  to 
Christ's  burial. 

After  all,  what  resemblance  is  there  between  a  man's  being 
dipped  or  plunged  in  water,  and  Christ's  being  laid  in  a  sepulchre 
which  was  Jiewn  out  of  a  rock  ? 

The  common  manner  of  burial  among  us  is  very  different  from 
that  in  which  Christ  was  buried,  and  may  have  been  the  occasion 
of  misleading  the  judgment  of  common  readers.  There  are  still 
remaining  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  many  ancient  tombs, 
which  slearly  show  the  manner  of  interment  formerly  practised. 
A  chamber  or  excavation  was  made  in  a  rock,  and  at  the  sides 
niches  were  formed  for  the  reception  of  dead  bodies.  The  body 
of  Jesus  was  wrapped  in  linen  and  laid  in  one  of  these  niches. 

*  Professor  Stuart.    See  also  Dr.  Wardlaw's  Dissertation. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  453 

Now  what  resemblance  is  there  between  a  body's  being  carried, 
—  not  let  down  as  into  a  grave,  but  carried  into  such  a  chamber 
or  excavation  in  a  rock  and  lying  there  three  days  in  one  of  the 
niches  at  the  side,  and  the  plunging  of  a  living  person  for  a  mo- 
ment in  water  ?  If  there  is  any  resemblance,  is  it  not  too  remote 
and  fanciful  to  be  regarded  by  an  Apostle  ? 

Let  me  just  remark  in  addition,  that  if  circumcision  had  been 
continued,  as  the  seal  of  the  covenant  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation ;  it  would  have  been  perfectly  just  and  proper,  for  the 
Apostle  to  make  use  of  the  metaphors  found  in  the  passages  above 
quoted,  and  to  say,  that  Christians  are  crucified  with  Christ,  dead 
with  Christ,  and  buried  with  Christ  in  or  by  circumcision ;  as 
this,  according  to  the  supposition,  would  have  been  the  appointed 
sign  of  their  being  thus  crucified,  dead  and  buried  in  a  spiritual 
sense. 

The  obvious  design  of  the  Apostle  is  to  illustrate  the  character 
and  obligations  of  believers  from  the  circumstance,  that  they  are, 
in  a  certain  respect,  conformed  to  Christ's  death ;  that  as  he  died 
for  sin ;  so  they  are  dead,  or  are  under  obligation  to  be  dead  to 
sin  ;  that  is,  they  are  holy,  or  are  by  their  profession  obliged  to  be 
holy."  So  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  deaths  This  is  explained  by  what  follows.  "  In 
that  Christ  died,  he  died  unto  sin  (or  on  account  of  sin,)  once ; 
but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God,  Likeivise  reckon  ye 
also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  (or  in  respect  to  sin,) 
but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ^  This  is  what  was  sig- 
nified by  baptism.  And  so  believers  were  baptized  into  Chrisfs 
death;  not  that  baptism  was  a  symbol  of  death,  or  the  state  of  the 
dead  ;  for  water  or  washing  in  water  never  was  a  symbol  of  this. 
But  water,  used  in  ceremonial  ablutions,  whether  by  w^ashing  or 
sprinkling,  and  afterwards  in  Christian  baptism,  always  signified 
purification.  Now  being  dead,  or  in  a  state  of  death  as  to  sin,  is 
the  same  thing  as  to  be  spiritually  purified,  or  made  holy.  And 
this  is  the  very  thing  that  baptism,  following  the  ablutions  under 
the  former  economy,  is  exactly  adapted  to  signify.  Or  to  say  all 
in  a  word ;  water  used  in  baptism  is  a  sign  of  that  moral  purificor- 


454  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

tion  of  believers,  which  the  Apostle  means  to  express  by  their 
being  "  crucified,"  and  dead,"  and  conformed  to  Christ's  "  death." 
Their  being  dead  in  conformity  with  Christ,  is  the  expression  which 
contains  the  metaphor.  And  baptism,  as  an  appointed  token,  or 
Bymbol,  denotes  what  is  signified  by  the  metaphor,  not  the  meta- 
phor itself. 

The  argument  which  has  been  derived  from  this  passage  in  fa- 
vor of  immersion  is  founded  on  the  supposition  of  a  real  resem- 
blance between  baptism  and  death.  But  this  supposition  is  very 
unnatural,  and  I  think  far  different  from  what  the  Apostle  had  in 
view. 

What  has  been  said  above  as  to  the  obligation  implied  in  bap- 
tism, may  be  confirmed  by  1  Cor.  10:  2.  The  Israelites  "  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Baptism,  as 
a  religious  rite,  was  not  then  instituted.  But  the  Apostle  know- 
ing the  special  obligation  implied  in  baptism,  makes  use  of  the 
word,  to  set  forth  the  obligation  of  the  children  of  Israel.  '^  They 
were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  That  is,  ia 
consequence  of  God's  mercy  towards  them,  especially  at  the  Red 
Sea,  they  came  under  special  obligations  to  obey  Moses,  the  servant 
of  God,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  to  obey  the  commands  of  God 
hi/  Moses.  Their  being  baptized  implies,  that  they  were  brought 
under  special  obligations  to  worship  and  obey  their  gracious  Deliv- 
erer. Baptism  is  here  spoken  of,  in  regard  to  its  spiritual  import, 
just  as  I  understand  it  to  be  in  the  passages  above  quoted  from 
Rom.  and  Col. 

As  to  1  Pet.  3:  21, 1  shall  stop  to  make  only  two  concise  re- 
marks. First.  The  Apostle  here  expressly  tells  us,  that  the 
thing  he  had  in  his  mind,  when  he  spoke  of  baptism,  was  not  an 
outward,  but  an  inward,  spiritual  washing.  Second.  The  con- 
dition of  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  ark  was  by  no  means  the 
condition  of  persons  buried  or  immersed  in  water.  This  was  the 
condition  of  the  ungodly  world.  It  was  from  this  condition,  as 
the  Apostle  tells  us,  that  those  in  the  ark  were  saved.  And  this 
preservation  from  the  ruin  of  the  ungodly  world  he  refers  to,  as 
illustrating  the  salvation  of  Christians,  Avho  have  that   inward 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  455 

purification,  that  "  ansiver  of  a  good  conscience  toivards  God" 
•which  he  tells  us  is  what  he  meant  by  baptism. 

The  mistake  into  which  many  writers  have  been  betrayed,  in 
regard  to  several  of  the  passages  which  speak  of  baptism,  particu- 
larly those  in  Rom.  vi,  and  Col.  ii,  has,  in  my  apprehension,  been 
owing  to  their  not  attending,  with  sufficient  care,  to  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  metaphorical  language  there  used. 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  have  not 
thought  it  proper  to  suggest  any  particular  reason  for  preferring 
sjjnnkling  to  immersion.  But  if  we  look  at  the  ancient  manner 
of  purification  and  consecration  established  by  the  authority  of 
God,  we  may  perhaps  find  such  a  reason.  It  is  evident  that 
lustrations,  or  purifications,  and  consecrations  under  the  Levitical 
law,  were  commonly  performed  by  sj^rinkling,  not  by  immersion. 
See  Num.  8:  7.  19:  18—21.  Heb.  9:  13,  19.  And  there  are 
yarious  allusions  to  sprinkling  as  the  prevaling  mode  of  ceremonial 
purification,  as  Ezek.  36:  25  ;  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  Is.  53:  15.  "  So  shall  he 
sjmnkle  many  nations." 

Now  how  can  a  mode  of  baptism,  which  has  such  a  resemblance 
to  the  ancient  mode  of  purification,  be  otherwise  than  very  sig- 
nificant 9  The  early  Christian  Jews  associated  the  idea  of  the 
Passover  with  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  sacramental  bread  and 
■wine  were  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  whom  they 
considered  as  the  Paschal  Lamb.  1  Cor.  5:  7.  In  like  manner, 
the  mode  of  baptism  which  we  commonly  use,  may  have  a  happy 
eflfect  by  being  associated  in  our  reflections  with  the  prevailing 
mode  of  purification  under  the  former  economy,  and  especially  by 
impressing  our  minds  with  that  inward  purification,  that  cleansing 
from  sin,  which  is  effected  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I 
present  this  view  of  the  subject  merely  to  show,  that  the  mode  of 
baptism  which  we  adopt  has  a  striking  significancy,  and  that  in 
regard  to  moral  effect^  which  really  constitutes  the  value  of  the 
rite,  this  mode  is  not  inferior  to  any  other. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  undertake  to  prove  from  Ecclesiastical 
History,  that  immersion  was  the  prevailing  mode  of  baptism  in 


4S4  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

ages  subsequent  to  the  apostles.  In  regard  to  this  argument,  I 
remark,  first,  that  it  is  the  only  clear  proof  in  favor  of  immersion, 
as  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism.  It  is  apparent,  that  no  such 
proof  can  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  For  the  Scriptures  nowhere 
declare,  as  the  Ecclesiastical  writers  do,  that  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  immersio7i.     They  nowhere  describe  the  mode. 

Secondly.  Those  who  regard  the  testimony  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  baptizing  by  immersion,  ought, 
to  be  consistent,  to  allow  the  same  testimony  to  be  an  argument  in 
favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  If  they  reject  this  last  argument,  they 
ought  also  to  reject  the  former ;  as  this  is  quite  as  clear  and  con- 
clusive, as  that. 

I  proceed  now  to  my  second  general  proposition  ;  which  is,  that 
Christians  ought  not  to  attach  to  the  mode  of  baptism  any  greater 
importance  than  the  Scriptures  do. 

All  men  are  in  danger  of  attaching  more  importance  to  external 
rites  and  forms,  than  really  belongs  to  them.  The  people  of  God 
did  thus  under  the  former  dispensation  ;  and  the  prophets  fre- 
quently warned  them  against  it,  and  told  them  plainly,  that  outward 
rites,  though  enjoined  by  divine  authority,  were  of  little  conse- 
quence, compared  with  spiritual  duties.  Christ  often  found  it 
necessary  to  guard  his  disciples  against  the  same  danger,  and  to 
teach  them  that  obedience  to  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law  was 
the  great  thing  required,  and  that  outward  observances  were  com- 
paratively of  but  httle  consequence.  In  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
Christians  had  a  zeal  about  the  externals  of  religion,  which  proved 
a  great  hinderance  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church  ;  and 
some  of  them  needed  to  be  told  by  Paul,  that  the  kingdom  of  Grod 
consisted  not  in  meats  and  drinks,  that  is,  in  exteryial  observances, 
but  in  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Qhost.  I  am 
well  satisfied,  that  Christians  are  exposed  to  a  mistake  of  this  kind 
at  the  present  day ;  and  exposed  in  a  high  degree,  where  any 
external  rite  or  form  is  made  the  subject  of  controversy.  In  such 
a  case  the  disputed  rite  is  likely  to  occupy  their  thoughts  too  fre- 
quently ;  to  make  a  deeper  impression  on  their  minds  than  other 
subjects  which  are  inconceivably  more  important ;  and  in  conse- 


INFANT   BAPTISM .  45T 

quence  of  this,  to  pervert  their  judgment,  to  misguide  their  con- 
science, and  to  excite  them  to  a  warmth  of  feeling  and  effort,  which 
exceeds  the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  which  can  be  justified 
only  when  directed  to  the  high  and  spiritual  interests  of  Christ's 
kingdom.  Against  such  a  mistake,  and  such  excess,  especially  in 
regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  would  earnestly  and  affectionately 
warn  the  followers  of  Christ. 

From  the  foregoing  examination,  I  think  it  must  have  become  • 
evident,  that  no  particular  mode  of  baptism  is  exactly  described 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  represented  as  the  one  which  believers 
are  required  to  use.  I  would  not  allow  myself  to  speak  with  un- 
becoming confidence  on  such  a  subject.  But  I  confess  I  am 
unable  to  find  a  single  text,  which,  according  to  just  rules  of 
interpretation,  clearly  proves,  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered 
by  immersion.  And  the  conclusion  which  I  draw  from  this  fact 
is,  that  if  we  contend  for  this  particular  mode,  we  go  beyond  our 
rule. 

I  am  confirmed  in  this  view  of  the  subject  by  other  considerations. 
Christ  intended  that  his  people  should  be  free  from  inconvenient 
and  burdensome  rites,  and  should  have  no  yoke  put  upon  them, 
which  was  not  easy  to  be  borne.  But  scarcely  anything  in  the 
Mosaic  ritual  was  so  inconvenient  and  burdensome,  as  baptism 
•would  in  some  circumstances  be,  if  it  could  be  administered  in  no 
way  but  by  immersion.  The  coldness  of  some  climates,  and  of 
some  seasons  of  the  year  in  more  temperate  climates,  renders  it 
almost  impracticable  to  baptize  in  this  way.  Those  who  practise 
immersion  find  it,  in  some  cases,  exceedingly  inconvenient  and 
difficult,  and  submit  to  it  merely  because  they  think  God  requires 
it.  Now  I  have  serious  doubts  whether  all  this  is  consistent  with 
the  simplicity  and  spirituality  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  whether 
the  unqualified  declaration  of  Christ  that  his  yoke  is  easy  and  his 
burden  light,  would  lead  us  to  expect,  that  an  outward  rite  would 
be  enjoined  upon  all  Christians  in  such  a  form,  as  would  render  it 
in  many  cases  so  difficult  to  be  compUed  with.  And  I  have  still 
stronger  doubts,  whether  it  is  consistent  with  the  genius  of  Chris- 
tianity that  baptism  by  immersion  should  be  required  of  all  be- 

VOL.  in.  39 


458  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

lievers,  -when  I  consider  that  the  thing  required  must,  in  some 
places,  be  rendered  not  onlj  difficult  but  impossible  for  want  of 
water,  and  in  various  instances  must  necessarily  be  given  up,  on 
account  of  bodily  infirmity. 

The  Christian  religion  was  designed  to  be  a  universal  religion, 
and  its  external  rites,  as  well  as  its  spiritual  precepts  were  un- 
questionably adapted  to  this  design.  But  the  rites  of  Christianity, 
in  order  to  be  adapted  to  the  design  of  making  it  a  universal  reli- 
gion, must  be  practicable  and  convenient  in  all  circumstances. 
An  absolute,  unvarying  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  administering 
either  baptism,  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  in  the  mode  of  performing 
public  worship,  would  operate  as  a  hinderance  to  the  spread  of  the 
gospel.  As  to  public  worship,  we  never  think  of  such  uniformity, 
but  vary  in  regard  to  external  forms,  just  as  the  ends  of  public 
worship  seem  to  require.  And  we  feel  that  we  have  the  same 
liberty  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  As  to  the  exterior  of 
this  solemn  rite,  we  depart  greatly  from  the  original  pattern. 

I  have  often  thought  it  strange  that  Christians  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  should  feel  themselves  authorized  to  take  such  liber- 
ties as  they  do,  respecting  the  manner  of  observing  the  ordinance 
of  the  Supper,  while  they  plead  for  so  strict  a  conformity  to  what 
they  conceive  to  have  been  the  original  mode  of  baptism.  Why 
are  they  not  as  much  bound  to  a  strict  conformity  in  regard  to 
one  ordinance,  as  in  regard  to  the  other  ?  But  do  they  practise 
such  conformity  as  to  the  eucharist  ?  Do  they  practise  it  in  re- 
spect to  the  time  ?  They  do  indeed  observe  this  ordinance  near 
the  close  of  the  day,  so  that  it  may  seem  to  be  a  Supper.  But 
Christ  kept  the  Passover  with  his  disciples  in  the  night,  that  is, 
after  it  was  dark,  and  at  the  close  of  the  Passover  instituted  the 
Supper.  The  Baptists  conform  in  this  respect  as  far  as  they  can 
consistently  with  convenience.  But  do  they  not  perceive  that  the 
plea  of  convenience  is  as  good  in  regard  to  one  ordinance,  as  in 
regard  to  the  other  ?  Christ  and  his  apostles  kept  the  sacramental 
Supper  in  an  upper  chamber.  But  who  at  the  present  day  thinks 
it  necessary  to  conform  in  this  respect  ?  Christ  and  his  apostles 
reclined  at  the  table  on  a  couch  or  sofa.     And  why  do  not  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  459 

Baptists  imitate  them  in  this  respect  ?  Because,  at  the  present 
day,  it  would  not  be  agreeable  to  common  usage,  so  it  would  not 
be  suitable  or  decent.  And  doubtless  this  plea  of  suitableness  and 
decency  has  weight.  And  why  has  it  not  as  much  weight  in  regard 
to  baptism,  as  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  The  bread  which 
Christ  brake  and  gave  to  his  disciples,  was  mileavened.  And  why 
do  not  the  Baptists  use  unleavened  bread  ?  Because  they  do  not 
think  an  exact  conformity  in  this  respect  is  either  necessary  or 
important.  The  wine  which  Christ  and  his  disciples  used  was  the 
pure  juice  of  the  grape.  And  why  do  not  the  Baptists  conform 
to  Christ's  example  in  his  respect  ?  Because  it  is  difficult  to  pro- 
cure such  wine.  Now  the  Baptists  take  the  liberty,  and  I  doubt 
not  very  properly,  to  vary  from  what  they  believe  to  have  been 
the  mode  of  the  original  institution  and  the  example  of  Christ,  in 
all  these  respects.  And  yet,  did  he  not  do  as  much  at  least  to 
enjoin  an  exact  conformity  in  regard  to  this  ordinance,  as  in  regard 
to  baptism  ? 

I  shall  just  refer  to  another  subject,  on  which  our  Baptist 
brethren  agree  with  us,  and  which,  in  my  view,  they  treat  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  Christ.  After  he  had,  with  the  most  conde- 
scending, amiable  kindness,  washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  he 
commanded  them  to  wash  one  another^ s  feet.  This  command  of 
Christ  was  as  express,  and  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  form  of 
the  command  itself,  as  much  intended  for  all  his  followers,  as  the 
command  to  baptize,  or  to  eat  the  sacramental  Supper.  And  yet 
the  Baptists,  as  well  as  we,  dispense  with  a  literal  observance  of  it, 
and  content  themselves  with  obeying  it  virtually ;  that  is,  with 
performing  acts  of  condescension  and  brotherly  kindness.  And  to 
justify  themselves  in  this,  they  plead  that  present  usages  are 
different  from  what  they  were  when  the  command  was  given ;  that 
what  was  then  an  act  of  kindness  would  not  be  so  now  ;  that  our 
Lord  and  Master  would  not  have  us  violate  the  common  customs 
and  civilities  of  social  intercourse,  for  the  sake  of  conforming  to 
the  letter  of  such  a  precept ;  and  that  the  duty  required  is  a  con- 
formity to  the  spirit  of  the  command  in  doing  acts  of  condescen- 
sion and  love. 


460  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Of  the  propriety  of  treating  the  command  of  Christ  here 
referred  to,  in  this  manner,  I  am  fully  satisfied.  Taking  into 
consideration  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  the  circum- 
stances and  usages  of  society,  and  exercising  judgment  and  discre- 
tion in  putting  a  reasonable  construction  on  the  command,  and  in 
complying  with  the  spirit  instead  of  the  letter  of  it,  we  act,  I  be- 
lieve, in  conformity  with  the  mind  of  Christ.  The  principles  on 
which  we  proceed  in  all  this  are  evidently  right.  And  why  should 
we  not  proceed  on  the  same  general  principles  as  to  baptism  ? 
Even  if  it  could  be  determined  that  baptism  was  at  first  adminis- 
tered by  immersion,  though  I  think  this  can  by  no  means  be 
determined  ;  still  might  not  a  regard  to  common  usage,  to  decency, 
or  to  convenience  be  a  sufiicient  reason  for  varying  the  mode  ? 
Might  not  compassion  for  those  believers,  who  are  in  a  state  of 
infirmity,  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  exempting  them  from  an  expo- 
sure, which  they  cannot  bear,  and  baptizing  them  in  a  manner  suited 
to  their  circumstances  ?  And  why  should  not  the  Baptists  content 
themselves  in  this  case  as  well  as  in  the  other  just  mentioned,  with 
conforming  to  the  original  institution  virtually,  though  not  literally 
and  exactly?  I  say  this,  even  on  the  supposition,  that  immersion 
was  evidently  the  form  of  baptism  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  But  this  supposition,  as  I  have  said,  wants  proof.  And 
accordingly  the  reason  in  favor  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling  is,  to 
my  mind,  strong  and  conclusive.  And  it  is  very  clear,  that  when 
the  Baptists  fix  upon  immersion  as  the  only  proper  mode,  and 
refuse  to  vary  from  this  in  any  circumstances ;  they  abandon  the 
just  and  reasonable  principles  which  they  adopt  in  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  in  regard  to  his  command  to  wash  one  an- 
other's feet ;  and  they  debar  from  baptism  some  Christians,  who 
are  qualified  for  the  ordinance,  and  desirous  of  receiving  it. 

There  is  another  consideration  relative  to  the  subject  before  us, 
which  I  think  calculated  to  have  a  very  salutary  influence  on  our 
minds.  The  consideration  is,  that  God  equally  approves  of  sincere 
Christians,  whether  they  are  baptized  by  immersion,  or  by  sprink- 
ling. My  meaning  is,  that  the  judgment  of  God  respecting 
Christians  depends  altogether  upon  their  real  internal  character ; 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  461 

and  that,  if  they  are  equally  conscientious  and  holy,  they  are 
equally  the  objects  of  his  approbation,  although  they  are  baptized 
in  different  ways.  Their  not  observing  an  external  rite  in  the 
same  manner  can  be  of  no  account  with  God.  In  the  midst  of 
our  discussions  and  controversies  respecting  outward  rites  and 
forms,  let  us  charge  oui*selves  to  remember  this. 

That  God  does  in  fact  regard  Christians,  w^ho  are  baptized  in 
different  ways,  with  equal  approbation,  might  be  made  evident 
from  the  representations  of  his  word,  and  from  his  actual  adminis- 
tration. But  formal  proof  cannot  be  necessary.  Those  who  are 
familiar  Avith  the  Scriptures  have  learnt,  that  God  judges  of  men 
in  the  manner  I  have  described.  And  we  cannot  fail  to  receive 
the  same  impression  from  what  is  manifest  in  his  administration.  I 
am  happy  to  acknowledge  those*,  who  prefer  immersion  as  the  mode 
of  baptism,  to  be  sincere  friends  to  Christ ;  and  I  would  not  cease 
to  rejoice  in  all  the  tokens  of  the  divine  favor  which  they  receive. 
But  do  not  those  Christians,  who  use  sprinkling  or  affusion,  receive 
as  many  tokens  of  divine  favor  ?  Does  not  God  give  them  as 
high  a  degree  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  in  con- 
sequence of  this,  do  they  not  exhibit  as  high  a  degree  of  sanctifi- 
cation  ?  Have  they  not  as  ardent  love  to  the  Saviour,  and  as 
much  zeal  for  the  promotion  of  his  cause  ?  Do  they  not  labor  as 
diligently  and  pray  as  fervently  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  ? 
Are  not  their  labors  as  successful  ?  And  da  not  their  prayers 
meet  with  as  much  acceptance,  and  obtain  as  many  gracious 
answers  ?  Do  they  not  as  sensibly  enjoy  the  presence  of  God  in 
the  special  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  in  seasons  of  affliction,  and 
in  the  hour  of  death  ?  Will  not  as  welcome  and  joyful  an  entrance 
be  ministered  to  them  into  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  their 
Saviour  ?  And  will  they  not  enjoy  as  high  a  degree  of  blessed- 
ness in  heaven  ?  Now  if  it  is  indeed  so,  that  God  grants  to  those, 
who  believe  sprinkling  or  affusion  to  be  the  proper  mode  of  baptism, 
as  many  tokens  of  his  approbation  and  love,  as  to  those  who  prefer 
immersion ;  is  not  the  conclusion  obvious,  that  God  does  not  con- 
sider the  particular  form  of  baptism  to  be  of  any  essential  conse- 
quence as  to  the  great  interests  of  rehgion  ?     It  clearly  follows 

39* 


462  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

then,  that  we  ovight  to  love  the  followers  of  Christ  who  baptize  in 
one  way,  as  much  as  those  who  baptize  in  another  way ;  and  that 
if  we  consider  the  form  of  this  rite  as  of  any  essential  consequence, 
or  suffer  it  to  have  any  great  influence  upon  our  feelings,  we  com- 
mit a  lamentable  mistake,  and  place  ourselves  in  opposition  to  the 
mind  of  God.  And  how  deeply  is  it  to  be  deplored,  that  any 
Christians  should  cherish  views  and  feehngs,  which  are  at  variance 
with  the  divine  will,  and  the  divine  administration  ! 

And  here,  as  I  am  about  to  take  my  leave  of  ^  this  subject,  I 
must  solicit  the  candid  indulgence  of  those  vvho  differ  from  me, 
and  also  those  who  agree  with  me  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, while  I  allow  myself  in  great  plainness  of  speech,  and  utter 
my  thoughts  seriously  and  unreservedly,  as  in  the  presence  of  him 
who  is  the  Saviour  and  Judge  of  the  world. 

We  must  all,  I  think,  be  satisfied,  that  our  relation  to  Christians 
generally,  I  mean  to  those  who  are  real  friends  to  Christ,  is 
unspeakably  more  important,  than  our  relation  to  any  particular 
religious  denomination,  or  party.  Our  relation  to  Christians  gen- 
erally respects  them  as  Christians,  a$  those  who  belong  to  Christ's 
spiritual  family  and  bear  his  image.  But  the  particular  relation  we 
sustain  to  those  of  our  own  denomination  or  party  respects  them  in  a 
very  inferior  point  of  light.  For  their  belonging  to  our  party  is 
clearly  a  matter  of  infinitely  less  importance,  than  their  belonging  to 
the  holy  kingdom  of  Christ.  But  do  we  always  regard  the  subject 
in  this  hght  ?  Are  we  not  liable  to  make  more  of  the  particular 
relation  which  men  sustain  to  us  and  to  our  party,  than  of  that 
high,  that  paramount  relation,  which  all  real  Chi-istians  sustain  to 
God  and  his  kingdom  ? 

Again.  We  must  all  be  satisfied,  that  the  salvation  of  sinners, 
and  the  spiritual  prosperity  of  Christ's  kingdom,  together  with  our 
own  sanctification  and  eternal  life,  should  be  to  us  the  great  ob- 
jects of  desire  and  pursuit ;  that  no  other  objects  should  be  suffered 
to  come  into  competition  with  these  ;  and  that  we  should  do  nothing, 
and  countenance  nothing,  which  can  in  any  way  interfere  with 
them.  But  have  these  great,  spiritual  interests  been  always  kept 
uppermost  in  our  mmds  ?     Have  they  not  sometimes  been  almost 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  463 

forgotten  ?  And  have  they  not  too  frequently  been  made  subor- 
dinate to  local  or  sectarian  interests  ?  I  have  heard  of  Christians, 
and  of  gospel  ministers,  who  have  made  the  mode  of  baptism  their 
grand,  engrossing  subject.  I  have  heard  of  those,  who  have  been 
actuated  by  such  an  intense  zeal  in  favor  of  one  particular  form 
of  this  external  rite,  that  they  have  seemed  almost  inclined  to 
make  it  the  sum  of  all  religion.  Even  in  those  auspicious  seasons, 
when  God  is  pleased  in  mercy  to  pour  out  his  Spirit,  and  produce 
in  the  minds  of  multitudes  a  deep  and  overwhelming  impression 
of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  value  of  eternal  salvation ;  there  are 
some  Christians,  and  some  teachers  of  religion,  (I  hope  the  num- 
ber will  be  found  small,)  who  show  an  unaccountable  forwardness 
to  introduce  discussions  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism;  and, 
instead  of  striving  with  all  their  hearts,  to  bring  sinners  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  to  promote  the  holiness  of  believers,  make 
it  a  favorite  object  to  convince  them,  that  baptism  must  be  admin- 
istered by  immersion.  I  must  say  too  that  I  have  known  those 
who,  in  similar  circumstances,  have  shown  an  unbecoming  forward- 
ness and  warmth  in  opposing  and  decrying  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
the  Baptists,  and  in  establishing  those  of  their  own  party.  Now 
it  is  well  known,  that  discussions  of  this  kind,  whether  on  one  side 
or  the  other,  have  a  direct  tendency  to  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
to  divert  the  attention  of  saints  and  sinners  from  the  one  thing 
needful.  The  introduction  of  such  a  subject,  in  the  way  of  con- 
troversy, especially  in  a  revival  of  religion,  I  am  sure  is  wrong. 
It  is  offensive  to  God,  and  will  be  followed,  as  it  often  has  been, 
by  the  withdrawment  of  his  gracious  influence.  And  I  would 
earnestly  beseech  any  ministers  or  Christians,  who  are  inclined  to 
such  a  course  as  that  to  which  I  have  now  referred,  to  pause  a 
few  moments,  and  seriously  to  inquire,  whether  they  are  pursuing 
the  great  object,  for  which  Jesus  died  on  the  cross,  and  for  which 
he  has  given  us  the  gospel,  and  the  day  of  salvation  ;  whether  they 
are  not  in  danger  of  substituting  an  excessive  zeal  for  an  outward 
rite,  or  rather,  the  form  of  such  a  rite,  in  the  place  of  pure  love 
to  Christ,  and  to  the  immortal  souls  of  men  ;  and  whether  they 
have  any  reason  to  think,  that  a  subject  of  this  kind  will  appear 


464  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

as  important  to  them  at  the  Judgment  day,  as  it  does  now.  My 
Christian  brethren,  with  whom  I  am  expostulating,  expect  to  dwell 
eternally  in  heaven  with  an  innumerable  multitude  of  God's  peo- 
ple, who  diflfer  from  them  as  to  the  mode  of  administering  baptism. 
And  I  am  very  sure,  that  "  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
the  first  born,  who  are  written  in  heaven,"  and  "  the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect,"  will  not  be  divided  into  different  and  contend- 
ing parties,  on  account  of  their  having  received  baptism  in  differ- 
ent ways.  The  presence  of  their  Saviour,  and  their  perfect  love 
to  him,  will  make  them  all  one.  And  any  strife,  or  prejudice,  or 
coldness,  existing  among  them  in  this  world,  will  either  be  buried 
in  a  happy  oblivion,  or  will  be  remembered  with  grief,  (if  grief 
can  be  found  in  that  happy  world,)  and  with  emotions  of  gratitude 
for  that  infinite  grace,  which  has  delivered  them  from  the  weak- 
ness and  imperfection  of  their  earthly  state,  and  prepared  them 
for  the  holy  employments  and  pleasures  of  heaven. 

With  these  few  suggestions  I  dismiss  the  subject.  But  there 
are  other  subjects,  relating  to  the  present  and  future  happiness  of 
all  the  children  of  God,  on  which  I  should  love  to  enlarge.  If 
we  are  real  Christians,  we  are  entitled  to  an  inheritance  incor- 
ruptible, undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away.  Christ  is  even  now 
the  portion  of  our  souls ;  and  we  shall  shortly  be  with  him  where 
he  is.  Having  this  hope  in  us,  let  us  purify  ourselves,  as  Christ 
is  pure.  Let  us  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight.  As  to  the  general 
interests  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  as  to  the  particular  interests  of 
our  own  denomination ;  as  to  the  substance  of  religion,  and  as  to 
its  outward  forms,  let  us  endeavor  to  judge  and  feel  as  Christ 
does,  —  and  as  we  ourselves  shall,  when  the  shadows  of  time  shall 
vanish,  and  we  shall  arrive  at  a  world  of  perfect  light.  There  all 
the  redeemed,  —  dehghtful  thought !  —  all  the  redeemed,  forget- 
ting every  distinction  of  name  or  sect,  will  unite  their  joyful  hearts 
and  voices  in  praise  to  him  who  loved  them,  and  washed  them 
from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood.  Let  us  do  all  in  our  power  to 
prepare  ourselves  and  others  for  that  blessed  world,  and  to  render 
the  society  of  the  redeemed  on  earth  like  what  it  will  be  in  hear 
yen.     Henceforth  we  will  have  no  strife,  but  to  copy  the  love  and 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  465 

meekness  and  forbearance  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  and  to  advance 
his  cause.  We  will  heartily  rejoice  in  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  among  Christians  of  every  description,  and  guard  with  the 
most  sacred  care  against  everything  which  would  hinder  its  pro- 
gress. We  will  suflFer  no  zeal  for  any  personal  object,  or  for 
the  interest  of  any  one  sect,  to  take  place  of  that  holier  zeal  which 
we  ought  to  cherish,  for  the  glory  of  our  common  Lord,  and  the 
prosperity  of  his  universal  empire.  If  we  may  but  have  the  joy 
to  see  him  inherit  all  nations,  our  souls  shall  be  satisfied.  We  will 
not  cease  to  love  thee,  and  to  pray  for  thy  peace,  0  kingdom  of 
Christ.  If  we  forget  thee,  let  our  right  hand  forget  her  cunning. 
If  we  do  not  remember  thee,  let  our  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
our  mouth. 


LECTURE     CXIX, 


THE    lord's    supper. 

The  opinions  wHch  have  been  entertained  respecting  this  ordi- 
nance have  been  very  different  from  each  other,  and  this  difference 
of  opinion  has  occasioned  a  variety  of  controversies.  And  in  con- 
sequence of  these  controversies,  the  conceptions  of  the  bulk  of 
Christians  have  become  indistinct  and  obscure,  and  the  appropri- 
ate benefits  of  the  ordinance  in  a  great  measure  prevented.  It 
is  with  a  strange  mixture  of  pleasure  and  pain,  that  I  review  the 
opinions  held  by  distinguished  writers  among  the  Catholics  and 
even  among  the  Protestants,  relative  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Their 
writings  contain  a  large  amount  of  plain  Scriptural  truth.  But 
how  much  do  we  find  that  is  erroneous  or  unintelligible  ! 

One  of  the  chief  sources  of  error  and  obscurity  on  this  subject 
is  the  confounding  of  the  Hteral  with  the  tropical  sense  of  the 
words  used  in  the  ordinance.  By  a  very  common  figure  of  speech, 
the  bread  and  wine  are  called  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  And 
it  is  by  a  similar  figure  that  the  Apostle  calls  believers  bread. 
1  Cor.  10:  17,  "  We  are  one  bread."  The  bread  used  in  the 
sacrament  is  a  symbol  or  representative  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
And  when  Christians  are  called  "  one  bread,"  bread,  that  is,  the 
one  loaf  of  bread,  is  a  symbol  of  the  union  of  beUevers  as  one 
body.     The  language  in  both  cases  is  equally  figurative. 

The  elements  used  in  the  ordinance  are,  hterally,  bread  and 
wine,  —  not  something  else  which  has  the  appearance  of  bread 
and  wine,  but  real  bread  and  wine,  and  nothing  else.     These  are 


THE  lord's  supper.  467 

the  signs  or  symbols.  It  is  also  true  that  the  body  and  blood 
which  are  signified,  are  literally  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the 
very  body  which  was  crucified  on  Calvary  by  order  of  Pilate,  and 
the  very  blood  which  was  there  shed  for  the  remission  of  sin. 

The  bread  and  wine,  and  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  are  all 
realities,  —  not  imaginations,  or  fictions.  Their  relation  to  each 
other  is  that  of  signs  to  the  things  signified.  So  when  it  was  said 
of  the  rock  in  the  wilderness,  "  that  rock  was  Christ,"  a  relation 
was  asserted  between  the  rock  and  Christ,  and  it  was  the  relation 
of  a  sign  to  the  thing  signified.  To  suppose  the  language  to  be 
literally  true,  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  rock  was  so  changed  as 
to  become  really  that  Uving  being,  the  Son  of  God,  or  that  the 
Son  of  God  was  really  changed  into  the  substance  of  a  rock.  The 
declaration  of  the  Apostle  could  not  be  literally  true  on  any  other 
supposition. 

I  have  referred  to  the  case  just  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  giving  a  literal  inter- 
pretation to  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture.  Who  can  count 
the  errors  which  are  to  be  traced  to  this  source  ?  But  I  shall 
limit  my  remarks  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper.  If  the  words 
of  Christ,  "  This  is  my  body  and  this  is  my  blood,"  should  be 
taken  Uterally,  the  popish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  would  follow  of  course.  But  the  doctrine  is 
palpably  false  and  absurd.  For  Christ  never  had  but  one  body, 
and  that  was  the  body  which  was  offered  up  "  once  for  all,"  as  the 
Scripture  says,  and  which  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  which 
was  carried  up  into  heaven,  where  it  is  to  remain  till  Christ's  sec- 
ond coming.  To  say  that  the  sacramental  bread  is  the  real  and 
veritable  body  of  Christ,  is  to  say  that  his  body  is  at  the  sa,me  time 
in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  that  it  is  at  the  same  time  in  ten  thou- 
sand dififerent  places  on  earth,  which  would  imply  that  he  has  ten 
thousand  bodies  or  that  his  one  body,  which  has  only  the  common 
dimensions  of  a  human  body,  is  enlarged  so  as  to  be  in  a  sense 
omnipresent.  Furthermore,  to  supix)se  that  the  sacramental  bread 
and  wine  are  really  transmuted  into  Christ's  body  and  blood,  so 
that  instead  of  eating  real  bread  and  drinking  real  wine,  we  do 


*"-^l 


468  THE  lord's  supper. 

really  and  literally  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood,  would  be  to 
suppose  that  we  are  cannibals,  and  not  Christians. 

The  Romanists  hold  that,  in  the  mass,  Jesus  Christ  is  really  and 
truly  immolated,  or  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice,  for  the  sins  of  the 
world,  and  this  doctrine  follows  of  course  from  their  manner  of  in- 
terpreting the  language  of  Scripture.  But  the  doctrine  directly 
contradicts  the  teachings  of  the  Avriter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  who  takes  special  pains,  ch.  ix.  and  x.,  to  show  that 
Christ  was  distinguished  from  the  former  sacrifices,  which  were 
offered  up  ofteri,  in  that  he  was  offered  up  only  once,  and  by  that 
one  offering  wrought  out  a  perfect  redemption  for  his  people. 

Further,  Christ  was  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  by  crucifixion.  He 
bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.  This  is  the  way  in 
which  he  was  immolated.  Now  if  he  is  truly  and  literally  sacri- 
ficed in  the  mass,  in  other  words,  if  he  is  literally  crucified,  it  is 
natural  to  ask,  who  crucifies  him  ?  The  Catholics  say,  he  is 
immolated  by  the  priest.  But  does  the  priest  really  crucify  him  ? 
Does  he  perpetrate  the  deed,  which  was  perpetrated  on  Calvary 
"  by  wicked  hands  ?  "  Those  who  immolated  Christ  were  "  mur- 
derers." Is  the  Catholic  priest  a  murderer  ?  If  not,  then  are 
the  Roman  soldiers  raised  from  the  dead  to  do  again  what  they 
did  so  long  ago  at  Jerusalem  ?  Or  are  other  enemies  presept  to 
accomplish  the  work  of  crucifixion  ?  The  Scriptures  mention 
none  who  crucify  Christ  afresh,  except  the  vilest  apostates. 

But  there  is  still  another  difficulty.  If  Christ  is  truly  and  lit- 
erally offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  in  the  mass,  and  offered  up  in  the 
only  way,  that  is,  by  crucifixion ;  then  every  time  the  mass  is 
repeated,  he  suffers  anew  the  agonies  of  crucifixion.  And  he 
suffers  those  agonies  at  the  same  time  in  all  the  places  where  the 
mass  is  celebrated.  And  the  more  frequently  it  is  repeated,  the 
more  frequently  does  he  suffer  and  die.  On  this  supposition,  his 
crucifixion  on  Calvary  was  only  the  commencement  of  a  series  of 
sufferings  to  be  endured  by  him  in  all  ages.  And  as  he  is  now 
immolated  every  week  in  so  many  thousand  places,  his  sufferings 
every  week  are  immeasurably  greater  than  they  were  when  he  was 
crucified  in  only  one  place.     Catholics  ought  to  regard  this  as  a 


THE   lord's   supper.  469 

fearful  subject,  and  to  consider  well  what  pains  and  agonies  thejr 
cause  the  Saviour  to  endure  at  the  mas,^,  —  real  pains  and  agonies, 
if  his  crucifixion  is  now  repeated,  —  unless  indeed  he  can  literally 
suffer  the  pains  of  crucifixion  so  frequently  and  in  so  many  places, 
"without  being  conscious  of  it. 

I  should  not  thus  spend  time  to  expose  opinions  which  every 
man  of  sober  judgment  knows  to  be  false,  did  I  not  wish  to  show 
what  consequences  floAV  from  a  manifest  violation  of  the  just  prin- 
ciples of  interpreting  the  word  of  God,  and  from  perverting  the 
faculties  of  the  mind  to  the  purposes  of  superstition. 

Will  you  now,  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  mind,  dismiss  all  these 
groundless  fancies  and  monstrous  absurdities,  and  see  how  plain, 
how  simple  and  precious  is  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

First,  notice  the  adaptedness  of  the  bread  and  wine  to  the  pur- 
poses to  be  answered  by  the  rite.  The  body  and  blood  signified 
by  the  bread  and  wine,  were  not  mere  human  flesh  and  blood,  nor 
even  Christ'' s  body  and  blood  considered  in  a  general,  indefinite 
sense,  but  his  body  broken  and  his  blood  shed  on  the  cross,  as  an 
atoning  sacrifice.  Now  as  bread  and  wine  nourish  and  strengthen 
us  corporeally,  so  Christ  crucified,  received  by  faith,  imparts  the 
blessings  of  salvation  to  our  souls. 

The  ordinance  is  expressly  designed  to  be  commemorative. 
Whenever  we  eat  the  sacramental  bread  and  drink  the  wine,  we 
are  to  do  it  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  and  to  show  his  death. 
Such  is  the  object  of  the  institution,  as  set  forth  by  Christ  and  the 
Apostle  Paul.  The  Saviour,  knowing  how  prone  his  disciples 
would  be  to  forget  him,  appointed  this  sacred  feast  to  be  kept  as  a 
perpetual  memorial  of  him. 

In  this  ordinance  we  are  to  remember  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
We  are  to  dwell  in  devout  contemplation  upon  his  attributes,  his 
offices,  his  works,  and  his  blessings.  We  are  particularly  to  medi- 
tate on  "  the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge."  Of  all 
the  precious  things  in  the  universe,  what  is  so  precious  as  lovef 
And  where  was  pure  love  ever  so  gloriously  displayed  as  in  Christ  ? 
Take  the  best  of  men  ;  and  there  may  perad  venture  be  some  one 
of  them,  who  would  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.     But  Christ 

VOL.  III.  40 


470  THE   lord's   supper. 

'Suffered  and  died  for  his  enemies.  Even  divine  love,  which  had 
from  the  beginning  been  constantly  active  in  the  bestowment  of 
good  through  the  Avidc  creation,  had  never  before  accompUshed  a 
work  Hke  this.  "  Herein  is  love,"  said  the  disciple  who  had  so 
often  leaned  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus  ;  —  "  herein  is  love  ;"  love  in 
a  new  and  peculiar  manifestation  ;  love  submitting  to  the  severest 
sufferings,  even  the  untold  agonies  of  crucifixion  for  the  benefit  of 
the  ill-deserving  ;  —  love  bearing  the  tremendous  burden  of  human 
guilt.  The  angels  in  heaven,  who  had  long  witnessed  the 
operations  of  divine  goodness,  felt  a  new  interest  in  this  manifesta- 
tion of  love,  and  desii-ed  to  look  into  it.  At  the  sacramental  Sup- 
per, this  is  to  be  a  leading  subject  of  contemplation  with  us.  We 
are  to  remember  the  love  of  Christ.  And  what  can  be  more  con- 
sonant to  the  dictates  of  an  enlightened  mind  and  a  pious  heart, 
than  to  be  conversant .  with  such  a  subject  —  to  have  communion 
in  our  souls  with  Christ  crucified  ?  Who  can  duly  estimate  this 
privilege  ?  In  the  exercise  of  that  faith  which  gives  present  reality 
to  invisible,  spiritual  objects,  we  are  to  behold  the  Lamb  of  God ; 
in  devout  contemplation  we  are  to  be  present  with  the  blessed 
Jesus  in  that  chamber  where  he  kept  the  Passover  with  his  disci- 
ples and  instituted  this  significant  and  commemorative  rite ;  to 
listen  to  his  last  conversation  with  his  apostles,  and  his  earnest 
prayer  for  them  and  for  all  his  people  ;  then  to  follow  him  to  the 
garden,  where  he  was  exceedingly  sorrowful,  and  fell  on  his  face, 
and  repeatedly  offered  up  such  an  agonizing  but  submissive  prayer 
to  his  Father ;  then  to  witness  his  meeting  with  the  traitor  and  his 
yielding  himself  to  the  band  of  soldiers,  though  he  could  have  sum- 
moned legions  of  angels  to  his  rescue,  or  could  have  confounded 
them  in  a  moment  by  his  own  omnipotence  ;  then  to  be  with  him 
while  he  stood  before  his  persecutors  and  to  behold  his  lamb-like 
meekness  and  gentleness,  his  fortitude  and  majesty  ;  to  accompany 
him  as  he  carried  his  own  cross  to  the  place  of  execution,  and  to 
see  what  took  place  there  from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth  hour ;  —  then 
to  fix  our  eyes  upon  him  as  he  was  laid  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph  ; 
and  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  to  follow  the  pious  women 
in  their  visit  to  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay,  and  to  witness  their 


THE  lord's   supper.  471 

ecstasy  when  they  found  that  he  was  risen  from  the  dead  ;  to  be 
present  at  his  repeated  interviews  with  his  disciples  after  his  resur- 
rection ;  to  hear  his  touching  questions  to  penitent  Peter,  "  Simon, 
son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?"  —  to  notice  his  condescending 
kindness  to  the  incredulous  Thomas,  when  he  said  to  him,  "  reach 
hither  thy  finger  and  behold  my  hands,  and  reach  hither  thy  hand 
and  thrust  it  into  my  side,  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing." 
We  are  also  to  remember  the  last  meeting  of  Jesus  with  his  disci- 
ples in  Galilee,  his  gracious  commission  to  his  apostles,  and  his 
ascension  into  heaven,  where  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession 
for  us. 

These  and  such  as  these  are  the  recollections  which  are  to  occupy 
our  minds  when  we  celebrate  this  Christian  ordinance. 

But  we  do  not  answer  the  design  of  the  ordinance  by  the  mere 
act  of  memory.  We  are  to  exercise  an  affectionate  faith  and  confi- 
dence in  Christ  and  a  rehance  upon  him,  as  an  all-sufficient 
Saviour.  His  glorious  character  is  to  excite  in  us  the  highest 
veneration  and  homage  ;  and  while  we  consider  his  voluntary  suf- 
ferings and  death  for  our  salvation,  we  are  to  abhor  ourselves  for 
sin,  to  repent,  and  to  resolve,  that  henceforth  we  will  live  unto 
him  who  died  for  us.  If  we  would  do  what  belongs  to  us  as  duty 
in  observing  this  sacred  rite,  we  must  abound  in  all  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  and  devote  ourselves  to  a  holy  and  useful  life. 

But  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  regarded  in  still  another  light. 
It  has  indeed  a  happy  moral  influence,  promoting  faith,  and  grati- 
tude and  love,  and  exciting  us  to  diUgence  in  the  discharge  of  duty. 
But  it  has  a  higher  office.  When  rightly  attended,  it  becomes  a 
channel  of  divine  influences,  a  medium  through  which  God  bestows 
his  blessings  upon  believers.  In  this  way  God  honors  his  own  in- 
stitution. And  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  all  the  good  moral 
effect  which  the  ordinance  produces  upon  the  minds  of  believers, 
is  owing  to  the  grace  of  God  imparted  to  them  through  this  sacred 
channel.  While  in  the  exercise  of  a  penitent  and  believing  heart, 
they  receive  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine,  their  divine  Saviour 
is  graciously  present,  and  manifests  himself  to  them  as  he  does  not 
to  the  world,  and  by  granting  them  larger  measures  of  his  Spirit, 


THE    lord's     supper. 

raises  them  to  higher  attainments  in  holiness,  and  gives  them  to 
experience  purer  joys. 

But  when  I  say  that  this  sacred  rite  is  the  channel  of  divine 
grace,  I  do  not  mean  to  distinguish  it  in  this  respect  from  other 
divinely  appointed  means.  It  is  indeed  eminently  adapted  to  im- 
part to  the  followers  of  Christ  clear  and  affecting  views  of  his  glory 
and  grace,  to  bring  them  into  spiritual  communion  with  him,  and 
to  make  them  partakers  of  his  benefits.  But  other  things,  par- 
ticularly the  word  of  God,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  faithfulness  and  the  prayers  of 
parents  and  other  Christians  are  also  means  appointed  of  God  for 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  man.  They  are  all  channels  of  divine 
blessings.  The  word  of  God  whether  preached  or  read,  is,  through 
tiie  Holy  Spirit  quick  and  powerful,  a  savor  of  hfe,  a  channel  of 
that  divine  influence  which  sanctifies  and  saves  the  soul.  Can 
more  than  this  be  said  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  any  outward 
observance  ?  The  fact  is,  that  God,  in  his  great  mercy,  has 
appointed  a  variety  of  means  for  the  promotion  of  our  spiritual 
good.  And  these  means  produce  the  best  effect  when  they  operate 
together.  The  Lord's  Supper,  separated,  as  it  commonly  is  in  the 
Catholic  church,  from  its  rightful  connection  with  faithful  gospel 
instruction  and  the  clear  knowledge  of  divine  things,  becomes  the 
■occasion  of  gross  superstition  and  fatal  delusion.  While,  on  the 
other  hand,  reading  or  hearing  the  word  of  God  and  the  mere 
knowledge  of  divine  truth,  unaccompanied  by  the  use  of  the  out- 
ward ordinances  of  Christianity,  would  conduce  but  partially  to  a 
truly  spiritual  life,  and  would  fail  essentially  of  making  us  complete 
in  all  the  will  of  God.  The  Catholics  mistake  in  attributing  a 
saving  efficacy  to  a  mere  attendance  on  the  sacrament,  without  the 
knowledge  of  divine  truth  and  the  exercise  of  the  Christian 
graces.  And  it  is  the  mistake  of  some  modern  sects  to  suppose  that 
Christians  in  the  present  life  can  dispense  with  the  use  of  the 
appointed  visible  ordinances  without  essential  loss  to  their  spiritual 
interests. 

Again.    This  sacred  rite  is  to  assist  us  not  only  to  recollect  what 
is  past,  but  to  keep  in  mind  what  is  future.     We  are  to  show  forth 


THE  lord's  supper.  473 

Christ's  death  "  till  he  come."  The  second  appearing  of  Christ  is  the 
dearest  object  of  our  hopes.  Our  hearts  are  sometimes  filled  with 
sorrow  to  think  that  we  are  so  long  separated  from  our  Saviour,  — 
that  our  eyes  have  never  seen  him  whom  our  soul  loveth.  But  we 
are  reminded  of  his  sure  promise,  that  he  will  come  again  and 
receive  us  to  himself,  that  where  he  is,  there  we  may  be  also. 
Then,  we  shall  not  see  him  through  a  glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face. 
This  will  be  the  consummation  of  our  blessedness.  Until  this 
blessedness  is  realized,  we  shall  find  these  outward  ordinances, 
these  symbols  of  distant,  invisible  objects,  unspeakably  precious. 
But  when  we  shall  attain  to  perfection  in  holiness,  and  shall  fix  our 
enraptured  eyes  on  that  merciful  Saviour  who  loved  us  and  died 
for  us,  these  outward  rites  now  so  needful  for  us,  will  give  place  to 
purer  and  nobler  services  and  to  celestial  enjoyments. 

Finally.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  means  of  manifesting  and 
promoting  the  mutual  love  and  union  of  believers.  "  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commimion,"  that  is,  the  par- 
taking together,  "  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  For  we, 
being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body."  The  followers  of  Christ 
are,  in  reality,  all  one.  They  serve  the  same  Lord.  They  are 
enUsted  in  the  same  cause.  And  so  far  as  they  act  in  character, 
they  love  one  another.  In  this  ordinance  we  show  that  we  are 
one.  And  if  our  hearts  and  lives  should  fully  correspond  with  the 
design  of  this  ordinance,  the  world  would  be  constrained  to  say,  be- 
hold !  how  these  Christians  love  one  another !  The  Lord's  Supper 
not  only  expresses  this  union,  but  is  a  means  of  promoting  it. 
When  we  join  together  in  commemorating  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
consider  that  sinful,  wretched  state  from  which  we  are  all  delivered 
by  his  atoning  blood,  and  when  we  consider  that  we  must  all  be 
saved  by  the  same  abounding  grace,  and  are  to  dwell  forever  in 
the  presence  of  the  same  adorable  Redeemer  ;  we  feel  an  influence 
which  softens  the  heart,  and  gently  but  powerfully  draws  us  to 
mutual  affection  and  kindness.  And  how  strange  it  is,  that  Chris- 
tians should  ever  separate  themselves  from  one  another  in  the 
observance  of  this  uniting  ordinance !     If  they  differ  in  some  other 

40* 


474  THE  lord's  supper. 

things,  they  are  agreed  in  this.  Thej  eat  the  sacramental  bread 
and  drink  the  wine  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  and  in  obedience 
to  his  command.  And  why  not  obey  together  ?  Why  not  com- 
memorate Christ's  dying  love  together  ?  This  is  a  common  duty, 
and  a  token  of  union.  In  regard  to  this  sacred  rite  they  are 
agreed  ;  and  why  not  thus  far  walk  together  ?  To  attempt  to  force 
a  union,  or  an  expression  of  union  where  there  is  a  real  disunion, 
would  be  unwise.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  forcing  a  disunion, 
where  there  is  a  real  union?  The  Lord  hasten  the  time,  when 
all  Christians  shall  not  only  be  but  appear  to  be  one  family,  and 
shall  more  fully  exhibit  that  spirit  of  mind  which  Jesus  represented 
as  the  grand  evidence  of  discipleship  ;  —  "By  this  shall  all  men 
know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  love  one  another. ^^ 


LECTURE    CXX. 


THE   LORD  S   DAY   OR   CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

The  Lord's  day  or  the  Christian's  Sabbath,  is  of  vital  conse- 
quence to  the  interests  of  mankind.  Whatever  may  be  the  value 
of  other  means  appointed  for  our  spiritual  benefit,  they  Avould 
have  but  little  ej0&cacy  without  the  Sabbath.  Even  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  the  only  standard  of  our  faith  and  practice,  and  the 
institution  of  the  gospel  ministry,  would  turn  to  but  small  account, 
should  we  give  up  ''  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made,"  and  so 
deprive  ourselves  of  any  regular  and  divinely  appointed  season 
for  reading  the  Scriptures  in  private,  and  hearing  their  doctrines 
and  precepts  explained  and  inculcated  in  public.  I  say  a  divinely 
appointed  season.  A  day  enjoined  by  the  authority  of  God  is 
manifestly  required  in  this  case  ;  because  no  consideration  of 
mere  expediency,  no  civil  or  ecclesiastical  decree,  and  no  agree- 
ment made  among  individual  Christians  will  be  likely  to  bind 
the  consciences  or  to  regulate  the  actions  of  men.  Unless  the 
day  of  holy  rest  is  believed  to  be  set  apart  and  consecrated  by 
God  himself,  the  current  of  worldly  business  and  pleasure  will  at 
length  sweep  it  away  even  from  the  church ;  the  only  alternative 
then  is,  that  there  must  be  a  Sabbath  set  apart  by  divine  authority, 
or  no  Sabbath  at  all.  Even  if  a  particular  day  should  be  volunta- 
rily observed  for  religious  purposes  by  individuals,  or  by  a  Chris- 
tian community,  without  the  belief  of  any  divine  command  en- 
joining it ;  such  a  day  would  be  very  different,  and  its  influence 
upon  the  minds  even  of  good  men  would  be  very  different,  from 


476  THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH. 

what  it  would  be,  if  it  were  regarded  as  an  appointment  of  God. 
The  same  principle  obtains  here  as  in  regard  to  the  Scripture. 
If  we  consider  it  as  a  mere  human  production,  it  will  exert  but 
an  inconsiderable  influence  upon  us.  Its  doctrines  and  precepts 
will  have  little  or  no  power  over  our  consciences.  God  must 
speak,  or  man  will  not  hear,  God  must  command,  or  man  will  not 
obey. 

We  shall  find  all  this  verified  in  the  history  of  Christendom, 
and  particularly  in  the  history  of  our  own  times.  Who  are  they 
that  trample  on  the  Sabbath,  and  make  it  subservient  to  their 
worldly  pursuits  ?  Not  merely  infidels ;  but  the  generality  of 
those  who  profess  a  respect  for  the  Sabbath,  but  do  not  regard  it 
as  a  divine  institution.  And  who  are  they  that  conscientiously 
and  faithfully  perform  its  sacred  duties,  and  secure  its  inestimable 
benefits  ?  Those  who  look  upon  it  as  set  apart  for  holy  purposes 
by  the  authority  of  God.  A  proper  belief,  that  our  Creator  and 
Sovereign  requires  the  Sabbath  to  be  kept  holy,  silences  the 
clamors  of  the  world,  bars  out  vain  thoughts,  subdues  the  passions, 
diffuses  a  sacredness  through  all  the  hours  of  the  day,  and  im- 
parts a  special  influence  to  divine  truth,  whether  heard  in  the 
sanctuary,  or  contemplated  in  the  stillness  of  retirement.  With- 
■out  such  a  belief,  the  benefits  naturally  resulting  from  this  divine 
institution,  will  not  be  obtained.  The  ministers  of  religion  and 
.civil  rulers  may  unite  their  efibrts  to  promote  the  observance  of 
a  day  which  is  made  sacred  only  by  human  authority  ;  but  they 
will  have  no  prospect  of  success.  The  command  to  "  remember 
the  Sabbath  day  and  keep  it  holy,"  coming  from  man,  is  imbe- 
cile. It  excites  no  cordial  reverence.  It  produces  no  fear  of 
transgression,  except  so  far  as  outward,  visible  actions  are  con- 
cerned. Who  will  stand  in  awe  of  a  command  which  is  laid  upon 
him  by  a  being  like  himself?  But  the  command  to  keep  the 
Sabbath  holy,  coming  from  the  Sovereign  of  the  world,  is  clothed 
with  power,  and  takes  hold  on  the  conscience  and  heart.  Being 
the  command  of  Him  who  is  everywhere  present,  and  whose 
searching  eye  is  ever  upon  us,  it  has  the  same  authority  over  us 
when  we  are  removed  from  the  notice  of  man,  as  when  we  are 


THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH.  477 

placed  in  the  most  public  view.     It  is  a  motive  which  touches  all 
the  springs  of  action. 

When  we  look  upon  the  nations  of  Europe,  we  behold  scenes 
of  revolution,  strife,  carnage,  and  anarchy.  Various  attempts 
are  made  to  introduce  improvements  into  the  forms  of  government 
and  to  promote  quietness  and  harmony,  and  the  salutary  influence 
of  law.  But  these  attempts  are  not  successful.  Things  remain 
in  the  most  ominous  condition,  and  patriots  and  politicians  know 
not  what  to  do.  Their  wisdom  fails  them.  Now  why  do  they 
not  see,  that  the  cause  of  all  these  evils  lies  in  the  destitution  of 
moral  and  religious  principle  in  the  mass  of  the  community  ?  The 
experiment  which  has  so  often  been  made,  may  be  a  thousand 
times  repeated  ;  and  the  result  will  be  the  same.  No  constitu- 
tions of  government,  however  wisely  framed  ;  no  improvement  of 
the  people  at  large  in  mere  literature  and  science  ;  no  lessons 
derived  from  history  and  experience,  and  no  motives  addressed 
to  personal  interest  or  safety,  can  hush  the  commotions  which  agi- 
tate the  nations ;  because  none  of  these  can  subdue  pride,  ambi- 
tion and  selfishness,  make  men  upright  and  benevolent,  and  en- 
gage them  in  those  employments  which  will  contribute  to  indi- 
vidual and  public  happiness.  Why  are  not  patriots  and  legisla- 
tors sensible  of  this  ?  Why  do  they  not  see  and  feel,  after  so 
much  hght  has  been  cast  on  the  subject,  that  the  only  effectual 
means  of  removing  the  calamities  which  now  afflict  the  nations, 
and  of  warding  oflF  the  still  more  fearful  evils  which  threaten 
them,  is,  the  healthful  influence  of  moral  and  rehgious  principle, 
diffused  through  the  mass  of  society  ?  It  is  evident,  that  the 
same  character  which  qualifies  men  to  be  happy  in  the  world  to 
come,  will  qualify  them  to  be,  in  the  highest  sense,  good  members 
of  civil  society.  And  if  civil  society  shall  be  chiefly  constituted 
of  enhghtened  and  good  men,  a  sure  foundation  will  be  laid  for 
permanent  peace  and  prosperity.  Now  without  undervaluing  any 
of  the  appointed  means  of  human  improvement,  I  hold  it  to  be 
an  obvious  and  certain  truth,  that  the  chief  means  of  forming 
men  to  a  good  character  is,  the  due  observance  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath;  and  that  without  this,  all  other  means  will  fail.     If  this 


478  THE     CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

benevolent  institution  were  rightlj  obsei'ved,  the  evils  which 
threaten  this  and  other  nations  would  disappear.  The  remedy  I 
propose,  is  simple  and  easy  ;  but  it  is  sure.  And  if  the  violence 
of  ambition  and  party  zeal  and  the  prevalence  of  vice  and  dis- 
order should  so  increase,  as  to  overturn  our  free  governments, 
and  involve  us  in  all  the  horrors  experienced  by  other  nations ; 
I  am  bold  to  affirm,  that  no  individual,  either  among  the  rulers  or 
the  people,  who  conscientiously  and  faithfully  keeps  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  will  be  chargeable  with  helping  to  bring  these  evils  upon 
the  land  ;  and  that  the  whole  guilt  will  lie  at  the  door  of  those, 
who  do  not  reverence  the  Lord's  day,  and  do  not  faithfully  attend 
upon  its  holy  and  sanctifying  duties. 

As  to  those  gospel  ministers,  and  rulers,  and  private  citizens, 
who  keep  the  Sabbath  day  holy,  who  diligently  engage  in  its 
public  and  private  services,  and  who  use  their  influence  to  impress 
upon  the  minds  of  others  the  high  obligations  of  this  divine  insti- 
tution,—  they  ought  to  be  acknowledged  as  true  patriots ;  and 
they  are  entitled  to  the  warmest  gratitude  of  the  community  for 
the  substantial  contribution  they  make  to  the  public  good.  AVhile 
on  the  other  hand,  every  man  who  neglects  to  remember  the 
Sabbath  day  and  keep  it  holy,  shows  himself  an  enemy  to  the  best 
interests  of  his  fellow  creatures.  He  is  guilty  of  casting  contempt 
upon  the  most  effectual  means  which  infinite  wisdom  has  provided 
for  curing  the  madness  of  the  passions,  for  checking  the  preva- 
lence of  error  and  vice,  and  preparing  the  human  family  for  the 
highest  enjoyment  of  which  they  are  capable. 

In  regard  to  the  means  best  adapted  to  promote  the  due  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath ;  some  have  reUed  upon  the  salutary  in- 
fluence of  civil  laws  requiring  the  Sabbath  to  be  treated  with 
respect,  and  forbidding,  under  severe  penalties,  all  open  violations 
of  it.  But,  in  my  apprehension,  we  have  no  reason  to  expect, 
that  mere  civil  enactments  will  ever  be  productive  of  any  exten- 
sive and  permanent  benefit  in  regard  to  this  subject,  except  merely 
as  they  afford  protection  to  Christians  in  worshipping  God  accord- 
ing to  their  own  consciences. 

The  experiment  has  been  often  tried  here,  and  in  other  coun- 


THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH.  479 

tries ;  hnt  the  result  has  made  it  evident,  that  the  great  interests 
of  morality  and  religion  cannot  be  safely  made  to  rest  on  the 
power  of  civil  law.  The  due  observance  of  the  Sabbath  must  be 
promoted  by  considerations  directed  to  reason,  conscience,  and 
the  heart.  Let  men  be  addressed  on  the  subject  from  the  pulpit, 
and  the  press ;  and  let  them  be  addressed  with  sound  argument, 
and  with  eai-nest  and  affectionate  exhortation  and  entreaty  ;  let 
them  be  addressed  as  rational  and  moral  and  accountable  beings, 
whose  everlasting  destiny  will  be  fixed  according  as  they  profane 
the  Sabbath,  or  keep  it  holy.  Let  the  sacredness  of  the  day 
be  inculcated  upon  the  minds  of  children  and  youth,  and  let  the 
faithful  instructions  of  parents  and  teachers  be  accompanied  and 
enforced  by  a  good  example  ;  and  let  all  who  reverence  the  Sab- 
bath lift  up  their  fervent  supplications  to  him  who  is  the  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath,  that  he  would  graciously  interpose  and  by  his  effect- 
ual influence,  bring  men  everywhere  to  remember  and  love  the 
day  of  spiritual  rest :  —  let  these  and  other  congenial  methods  be 
pursued,  and  -with  the  divine  blessing,  it  will  ere  long  be  seen  by 
all  men,  that  the  objections  which  have  been  made  against  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath,  have  sprung  from  depravity  or  igno- 
rance ;  that  the  appointment  of  a  sacred  day  is  the  source  of 
immeasurable  good  to  the  world,  and  is  one  of  the  highest  mani- 
festations of  divine  love. 

I  have  represented  it  as  indispensable  to  the  appropriate  in- 
fluence and  usefulness  of  the  Sabbath,  that  it  should  be  regarded 
as  of  divine  authority.  I  shall  now  show,  that  the  Sabbath  is 
indeed  invested  with  divine  authority,  and  is  obligatory  upon  the 
consciences  of  men. 

Go  back  then  to  the  beginning  of  the  world  ;  and  you  find 
that,  immediately  after  God  had  finished  the  work  of  creation, 
he  instituted  the  Sabbath.  He  appointed  the  very  first  day 
■which  followed  the  creation,  to  be  a  sacred  day.  "  God  rested 
on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  v/hich  he  had  made  ;  and 
he  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it,"  —  that  is,  he  set  it 
apart  to  a  special  and  holy  use.  God  thus  made  known  his 
will,  that  man  should  enter  on  his  immortal  existence  by  observ- 


480  THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

ing  this  sacred  institution,  and  by  enjoying  its  benefits.  And  by 
appointing  it  at  the  commencement  of  human  existence,  God 
plainly  signified,  that  he  intended  it  for  the  whole  race.  "  The 
Sabbath  was  made,"  not  merely  for  the  parents  of  the  species, 
and  not  for  any  nation  or  tribe,  but  "/or  manP  It  was  ap- 
pointed from  the  beginning,  and  it  was  appointed  for  the  whole 
race.  And  thus  it  was  distinguished  above  all  other  positive 
institutions. 

Some  learned  writers  have  held,  that  the  Sabbath  was  first  ap- 
pointed at  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai,  and  that  the  mention  of 
it  in  Genesis  was  by  way  of  anticipation.  But  it  is  manifest,  that 
the  account  of  what  took  place  on  the  seventh  day,  as  much  as 
what  took  place  on  each  of  the  preceding  six  days,  is  a  simple 
narrative  of  facts  ;  and  we  may  just  as  well  say  that  the  creation 
of  fight,  or  the  creation  of  man,  was  mentioned  in  Gen.  i,  by- 
way of  anticipation,  as  that  the  appointment  of  the  Sabbath  is 
to  be  so  understood. 

It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  History  which  Moses  wrote 
of  the  antediluvian  world  is  exceedingly  succinct,  containing  ac- 
counts of  hundreds  of  years  in  a  few  short  sentences.  But  it 
might  be  shoAvn,  that  even  in  that  brief  narrative  evidence  is  not 
wanting  of  the  counting  of  time  by  weeks.  But  when  we  come 
down  to  the  time  of  Moses  all  is  made  plain. 

We  find  in  Ex.  xii.  the  first  express  mention  of  the  Sabbath 
after  its  appointment  in  Paradise.  And  it  is  to  be  particularly 
noticed,  that  it  is  here  recognized  as  an  institution  already  existing. 

Even  before  Moses  said  anything  to  the  people  on  the  subject, 
it  is  said ;  Ex.  16 :  22,  "  that  on  the  sixth  day,  they  gathered 
twice  as  much  bread,  two  omers  for  one  man."  This  being  told 
to  Moses,  he  said,  (it  being  the  sixth  day)  —  "  To-morrow  is  the 
rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath.'"  He  did  not  say,  God  now  appoints  to- 
morrow to  be  a  Sabbath  ;  but  it  is  the  Sabbath  ;  — just  as  we  should 
say  now,  to-morrow  is  the  Sabbath  and  we  must  make  provision 
for  two  days. 

Proceed  now  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  Ex.  20:  9  — 11.  God 
said  "  Remember  the   Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."     Remember 


THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH.  481 

that  it  was  set  apart  by  God  at  tlie  beginning  of  the  -world.  This 
original  appointment  of  the  Sabbath  in  Paradise  is  expressly  men- 
tioned in  the  fourth  commandment  itself,  as  a  reason  -why  it  should 
be  kept  holy.  "  For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and 
earth,  —  and  rested  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed 
the  Sabbath  day  and  hallotved  it^  Thus  it  appears  that  the 
obligation  to  keep  the  Sabbath  did  not  originate  at  the  giving  of 
the  fourth  commandment  on  Sinai,  as  the  commandment  itself 
refers  to  the  origin  of  the  institution  in  Paradise.  God  reminded 
the  people  of  the  original  appointment,  and  now  enjoined  it  anew, 
and  urged  the  observance  of  it  by  additional  motives.  His  great 
mercy  in  delivering  them  from  Egyptian  bondage,  was  in  truth 
a  weighty  motive  to  obey  this  and  every  other  command.  But 
the  fact  that  this  instance  of  divine  mercy  was  mentioned  as  a 
reason  for  remembering  the  Sabbath,  no  more  proves  that  the 
duty  of  observing  the  day  commenced  at  that  time,  than  it  proves 
that  the  duty  of  worshipping  the  true  God  or  of  honoring  father 
and  mother  then  commenced.  You  may  say,  that  all  the  precepts, 
excepting  the  fourth,  were  the  laws  of  our  intelligent  and  moral 
nature,  and  were  written  on  the  heart,  and  so  were  of  universal 
obligation.  This  is  true.  And  I  think  that  a  thorough  exami- 
nation will  show,  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  also  a  law  of  our 
nature  ;  that  it  as  really  results  from  the  constitution  of  our  minds^ 
as  moral  and  religious  beings,  as  the  law  which  requires  us  to- 
worship  God  and  to  avoid  idolatry ;  that  we  must  keep  one  day 
in  seven,  yes,  just  that  proportion  of  time,  as  holy,  or  we  cannot 
reach  the  ends  of  our  moral  existence.  I  adopt  this  conclusion 
from  my  confidence  in  God,  who  perfectly  knows  what  we  are, 
and  who  unquestionably  adapts  all  his  institutions  and  commands 
to  our  nature  and  necessities,  so  that  the  appointment  of  the 
Sabbath  as  truly  as  any  other  divine  law,  "  is  holy,  just,  and 
good."  I  am  led  to  the  same  conclusion  from  common  experi- 
ence,—  the  experience  of  those  who  by  keeping  the  Sabbath 
holy,  secure  to  themselves  the  blessings  of  spiritual  purity  and 
life  and  joy  ;  and  the  experience  of  those  who,  by  neglecting  and 
VOL.  III.  41 


THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

desecrating  the  Sabbath,  involve  themselves  in  the  evils  of  utter 
moral  ruin. 

It  is  a  circumstance  which  cannot  be  overlooked,  that  the  com- 
mand enjoining  the  Sabbath  was,  together  with  the  other  nine 
precepts  of  the  law,  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  tables  of 
stone,  indicating  that  it  is,  like  them,  of  permanent  obligation. 
The  decalogue  is  made  up  of  what  are  called  moral  precepts. 
These  precepts  are  expressly  enjoined  by  God,  and  they  are 
moreover  grounded  in  our  intellectual,  spiritual  nature  ;  and  thus 
they  come  to  us  with  a  two-fold  obligation.  And  while  the 
obligation  of  laws  which  are  merely  ritual  or  ceremonial,  may 
pass  away,  mankind  in  all  ages  are  held  to  observe  these  moral 
precepts. 

We  learn  from  the  Old  Testament  how  the  Sabbath  was  re- 
garded by  the  prophets  and  the  faithful  servants  of  God,  and  what 
divine  judgments  came  upon  those  who  profaned  the  day.  I 
shall  quote  only  one  passage  to  show  how  preeminently  important 
the  Sabbath  was  in  the  view  of  God  himself.  Isa.  58: 13, 14  ;  "  If 
thou  turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath,  from  doing  thy  pleasure 
on  ray  holy  day,  and  call  the  Sabbath  a  delight,  the  holy  of  the 
Lord,  honorable ;  and  shalt  honor  him,  not  doing  thine  own  ways, 
nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure,  nor  speaking  thine  own  words : 
Then  shalt  thou  delight  thyself  in  the  Lord ;  and  I  Avill  cause  thee 
to  ride  upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth,  and  feed  thee  with  the 
heritage  of  Jacob  thy  father ;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  it." 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  was  treated 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Nothing  can  be  more  obvious 
than  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  head  of  the  church,  uniformly  man- 
ifested a  pious  reverence  for  the  day  of  rest.  He  did  indeed 
both  by  his  instructions  and  his  example  aim  to  free  the  institution 
from  the  influence  of  supei-stition  and  bigotry.  Accordingly  it 
was  a  lesson  which  he  repeatedly  inculcated  upon  the  people,  that 
it  was  lawful  to  do  works  of  mercy  and  charity  on  the  Sabbath. 
When  he  was  accused  of  violating  the  Sabbath  because  he  and 
his  disciples  went  through  the  field  and  plucked  corn  to  eat,  the 


THE    CHRISTIAN     SABBATH.  483 

manner  in  which  he  defended  himself  is  worthy  of  special  notice. 
Matt.  12:  3,  4  ;  "  But  he  said  unto  them,  have  ye  not  read  what 
David  did  when  he  was  a  hungered,  and  they  that  were  with  him ; 
How  he  entered  into  the  house  of  God,  and  did  eat  the  shew 
bread,  which  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  eat,  neither  for  them  which 
were  with  him,  but  only  for  the  priests?"  David  was  justified 
in  doing  what  he  did,  because  it  was  a  matter  of  necessity,  as  he 
was  suffering  for  want  of  food.  In  other  circumstances  it  would 
not  have  been  lawful.  Christ's  reference  to  this  case,  as  a  justi- 
fication of  his  conduct,  imphed  an  acknowledgment  of  the  sanctity 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  an  acknowledgment  too  that,  in  ordinary 
circumstances,  he  should  not  have  done  what  he  did  on  the  Sab- 
bath, but  that  he  and  his  disciples  were  hungry,  as  David  and 
his  company  were,  and  were  therefore  justified,  as  David  was,  in 
departing  from  the  letter  of  the  law  to  satisfy  hunger.  It  was 
a  plain  recognition  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  as  having  divine 
authority ;  and  it  was  a  good  example  for  Christians,  showing  that 
they  are  not  to  depart  even  from  the  letter  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, except  in  cases  of  necessity.  At  the  close  of  his 
remarks  to  those  who  charged  him  with  profaning  the  Sabbath, 
Jesus  declared  that  he  was  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  and  therefore 
had  a  right  to  liberate  the  observance  of  it  from  whatever  was 
burdensome  under  the  former  economy,  and  so  to  modify  it,  that  it 
should  in  all  respects  be  adapted  to  the  new  dispensation.  Such 
was  the  position  taken  by  our  Saviour.  He  maintained  the  obli- 
gation and  sanctity  of  the  seventh  day,  and  at  the  same  time 
asserted,  that  he  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 

It  was,  I  doubt  not,  in  conformity  with  the  instructions  which 
Jesus  gave  his  apostles  while  he  remained  with  them,  or  with  the 
teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  he  sent  to  be  their  guide  after 
his  departure,  that  they  early  began  to  show  a  special  regard  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  Jesus  himself  conferred  great  honor 
on  that  day,  by  choosing  it  as  the  time  of  his  resurrection,  and 
by  repeatedly  meeting  with  his  disciples  on  the  return  of  that 
day.  Again.  The  first  day  of  the  week  was  marked  by  that 
new  and  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  to  char- 


484  THE    CHKISTIAN     SABBATH. 

acterize  the  gospel  dispensation.  The  Pentecost  has  been  clearly 
shown  by  learned  men  to  have  fallen  on  the  Lord's  day.  Thus 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  the  Christian  Sabbath,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  at  the  same  time  dedicated  to  God  the  Creator  of  the 
•world,  to  the  Son  of  God  as  the  Redeemer,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  the  Sanctifier. 

The  apostles,  who  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  fixed  upon 
the  first  day  as  the  day  of  holy  rest.  This  is  evident  from  the 
sacred  records.  The  apostles  and  early  Christians  met  for  pub- 
lic worship  on  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  and  it  is  frequently 
mentioned  as  a  thing  well  understood,  that  this  was  the  day 
to  be  kept  holy.  At  the  close  of  the  century,  John  the  aged 
Apostle,  had  the  revelation  which  closes  the  New  Testament, 
made  to  him  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  says,  "  I  was  in 
the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day."  He  does  not  speak  as  though  this 
was  a  new  name  given  to  the  day,  but  a  name  well  understood, 
and  with  which  Christians  were  familiar. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  change  of  the  Sabbatical  institution  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  was  completed,  not 
.suddenly,  but  by  a  gradual  process.  This  was  true  also  in  the 
transition  from  circumcision  to  baptism.  Though  the  latter  was 
intended  to  supersede  the  former  ;  yet  for  a  time  they  existed 
together.  All  Christians  were  baptized ;  and  some  retained  cir- 
cumcision, till  at  length  circumcision  was  abandoned.  The  same 
appears  to  have  been  the  case  as  to  the  Sabbath.  Christians  gene- 
rally, I  suppose  universally,  observed  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
called  the  Lord's  day ;  and  some  retained  the  seventh  da}'  also, 
called  the  Sabbath.  And  the  apostles  themselves  often  made  use 
of  that  day  for  pubhc  worship.  But  mutual  prejudice  and  dis- 
sension soon  appeared  among  the  followers  of  Christ.  And  it 
was  evidently  the  Apostle's  aim  to  remove  these,  and  to  promote 
forbearance  and  charity,  in  what  he  said  to  the  Roman  Christians, 
Rom.  14:  5,  6,  and  to  the  Colossians  in  Col.  2:  16.  There  is 
good  reason  to  think,  that  the  Apostle  referred  to  the  dispute 
about  the  duty  of  observing  the  seventh  day,  and  meant  to  give 
liberty  to  Christians  to  observe  it  or  not,  according  to  the  dictate 


THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH.  485 

of  their  own  consciences  ;  and  thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  it  to 
subside  quietly,  and  for  the  Lord's  day  univei-sally  to  take  its 
place.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostle  ever  spoke  of  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day^  as  a  matter  of  indifference. 

That  the  seventh  day  Sabbath  was  soon  given  up  in  the  churches 
planted  by  the  apostles,  might  be  made  perfectly  evident  by 
citations  from  the  earliest  writings  extant.  I  shall  quote  but  a 
few  of  the  many  passages  which  relate  to  the  subject. 

Ignatius,  a  companion  of  the  Apostle,  says,  "  Let  us  no  longer 
Sabbatize,  but  keep  the  Lord's  day  on  which  our  life  arose." 
Justin  Martyr,  about  the  close  of  the  first  century,  speaks  of 
Christians  assembling  to  hear  religious  instruction  on  the  day 
called  Sunday,  and  says,  "  it  was  the  day  on  which  the  creation  of 
the  world  began,  and  on  which  Christ  I'ose  from  the  dead."  Ire- 
naeus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  had  been  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
John,  says,  "  On  the  Lord's  day  every  one  of  us  Christians  keeps 
the  Sabbath."  Augustine  says,  "  The  Lord's  day  was  by  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  declared  to  Christians  and  from  that  very 
time  it  began  to  be  celebrated  as  the  Christian's  festival."  And 
Athanasius  says,  "  The  Lord  transferred  the  Sabbath  to  the 
Lord's  day." 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some,  that  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, the  fourth  command  is  given  up,  and  that  we  can  no 
longer  appeal  to  it  as  having  authority  to  bind  the  conscience. 
I  cannot  but  regard  this  as  a  great  mistake.  The  conclusion 
which  I  have  been  led  to  adopt,  and  which  I  think  may  be  fully 
sustained  by  sound  arguments,  is  this ;  that  the  appointment 
of  one  day  in  seven  as  holy  time,  was  made  in  Paradise,  and  ex- 
pressly repeated  at  Sinai ;  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  seventh  day  was  to  be  observed 
in  commemoration  of  the  finishing  of  the  work  of  creation,  that 
being  a  work  so  glorious  to  God  and  so  worthy  to  be  celebrated 
by  man ;  but  that  the  work  of  the  Redeemer  on  earth,  which  was 
brought  to  its  consummation  by  his  resurrection,  is  in  some  respects 
still  more  interesting  and  important  to  redeemed  sinners,  and 
that,  in  commemoration  of  this  event,  it  was  the  will  of  God,  that 

41* 


486  THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH. 

the  original  institution,  that  is,  the  setting  apart  of  one  day  ia 
seven  for  holy  purposes,  should  be  observed  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  thus  changing,  not  the 
substance  of  the  institution,  but  only  the  particular  day  on  which 
it  is  to  be  observed.  According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  the 
fourth  command  of  the  decalogue  still  expresses  the  will  of  God 
as  to  keeping  a  holy  day,  and  as  to  the  proportion  of  time  to  be 
kept,  nothing  in  reality  being  detracted  from  the  essential  nature 
of  what  is  required  in  that  command,  but  on  the  other  hand  a 
new  and  most  momentous  circumstance,  that  of  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  being  made  specially  prominent  in  the  celebration  of 
the  sacred  day. 

The  proper  manner  of  observing  the  Sabbath  is  indicated  by 
the  nature  of  the  institution.  God  sanctified  the  day,  that  is,  set 
it  apart  to  a  sacred  and  holy  use.  If  we  would  harmonize  witii 
the  divine  appointment,  we  must  abstain  from  our  ordinary  worldly 
employments  and  recreations,  and  spend  the  day  in  the  public 
and  private  exercises  of  God's  worship,  and,  when  occasion  re- 
quires, in  works  of  necessity  and  mercy.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that 
Christians  generally  fall  far  short  of  the  use  they  ought  to  make 
of  holy  time,  and  indeed  that  they  have  but  a  very  imperfect 
conception  of  what  it  is  for  them  to  sanctify  the  Sabbath  ?  And 
lin  our  reflections  on  a  dying  bed  shall  we  not  recal  with  sor- 
Tow  our  neglects  of  duty  in  this  respect  ?  If  we  would  com- 
ply with  God's  command  to  remember  the  Sabbath  day  and 
keep  it  holy,  we  must  fill  up  the  time  with  spiritual  and  holy 
duties ;  must  devoutly  read  the  word  of  God,  and  other  books 
which  are  peculiarly  spiritual  and  holy.  In  conversation  we  must 
avoid  what  is  vain  and  worldly,  and  dwell  on  sacred  and  holy 
subjects.  We  must  aspire  after  fellowship  with  the  Father,  and 
with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Divine  and 
eternal  objects  must  be  brought  near.  We  must  strive  to  have 
all  our  aflections  holy,  and  to  attain  to  an  entire  conformity  with 
the  character  and  law  of  God.  We  must  make  it  our  object 
every  Lord's  day,  to  subdue  the  evils  of  our  hearts  and  to  grow  in 
grace,  and  must  watchfully  guard  against  whatever  vrould  dia- 


THE     CHRISTIAN     SABBATH.  487 

tract  our  minds,  or  turn  off  our  thoughts  from  divine  things,  or 
hinder  our  communion  with  God  in  prayer.  Now  if,  through 
divine  grace,  we  should  keep  a  single  Sabbath  as  we  ought,  what 
blessed  effects  would  result  from  it !  And  if  through  the  help 
of  God,  we  should  rise  to  the  habit  of  spiritual  diligence  and 
watchfulness  and  fervent  prayer  on  each  holy  day  through  the 
year,  and  from  year  to  year ;  we  should  make  visible  advances  in 
the  divine  life.  The  Lord's  day  would  become  a  distinguished 
day.  We  should  look  back  upon  every  Sabbath  as  a  season 
of  spiritual  life  and  joy,  a  day  in  which  we  tasted  that  the  Lord 
is  good,  and  enjoyed  the  beginning  of  heavenly  rest.  If  now 
you  would  conquer  sin  and  be  adorned  with  the  beauties  of  holi- 
ness ;  if  you  would  please  God,  and  secure  his  blessing  upon 
yourselves,  your  friends  and  fellow  creatures ;  if  you  would  be 
useful  to  the  church  and  the  world,  and  be  prepared  to  die  in 
peace  and  to  enter  into  the  joy  of  your  Lord  ;  then,  trusting  in 
the  grace  of  Christ,  deliberately  and  earnestly  resolve,  that 
henceforth  you  will  remember  the  Sabbath  day  and  keep  it 
holj. 


LECTURE    CXXI. 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.      PRELACY. 

In  our  treatment  of  this  subject,  we  must  carefully  observe  all 
the  principles  which  are  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures.  Christ  and 
his  apostles  must  be  regarded  as  infallible  teachers.  Whatever 
doctrine  they  taught,  we  must  receive  as  binding  upon  our  faith. 
If  we  find  any  direction  or  act  of  Christ  or  his  apostles  respecting 
the  government  of  the  church,  we  must  consider  it  as  expressing 
his  mind  or  the  mind  of  his  inspired  apostles.  And  why  is  not  an 
expression  of  the  divine  will  as  obligatory  on  us  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  as  to  any  other  ?  If  in  regard  to  any  of  the  particular 
"ways  of  proceeding  in  church  government,  we  are  left  without 
instruction  from  the  word  of  God,  we  are  at  liberty,  and  are  under 
obligation,  to  make  a  proper  use  of  our  own  discretion.  In  such  a 
case  it  is  manifestly  the  will  of  God  that  we  should  proceed 
according  to  our  conviction  of  what  is  expedient  and  suitable. 
But  so  far  as  general  principles  of  ecclesiastical  government  are 
laid  down  in  the  word  of  God,  those  principles  must  govern  us  ;  — 
making  what  may  be  called  the  basis  of  Church  Grovemment. 
Particular  legislation  will  be  called  for.  But  Avhenever  we 
legislate,  we  should  keep  our  eye  upon  those  permanent  principles 
which  form  our  ecclesiastical  constitution ;  remembering  that  any 
act  of  ours  contravening  those  principles,  would  be  wholly  unau- 
thorized. 

There  is  only  one  thing  which  can  in  any  way  modify  these  sug- 
gestions.    It  is  admitted  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  guided 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.       PRELACY.  489 

by  infallible  wisdom.  But  it  may  be  said,  that  their  wisdom  was 
exercised  with  reference  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  in 
whicii  they  Uved,  every  direction  and  act  of  theirs  having  been 
certainly  right  in  those  circumstances.  But  suppose  some  direc- 
tion or  act  of  theirs  related,  not  to  what  was  of  a  moral  or  spiritual 
nature,  but  to  some  outward  form,  the  propriety  of  which  depended 
upon  existing  circumstances.  The  question  is,  whether,  in  differ- 
ent circumstances,  we  are  bound  to  conform  to  such  a  direction  or 
such  an  example.  And  this  is  my  reply.  If  the  direction  or 
act  was  manifestly  yrounded  upon  the  peculiar  circumstances  then 
existing,  and  if  circumstances  now  exist  which  are  so  mate- 
rially different  that,  had  they  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  or  his 
apostles,  the  direction  or  act  referred  to  would  unquestionably 
have  been  different ;  in  such  a  case  we  should  be  at  liberty  to 
govern  ourselves  by  other  principles.  As  an  illustration,  take  the 
judgment  which  the  Apostle  gave  to  the  Christians  at  Corinth, 
that  it  was  expedient  for  them  to  abstain  from  marriage.  His 
judgment  was  grounded  upon  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the 
time.  He  expressly  referred  to  those  circumstances,  as  the  reason 
of  his  advice.  Now  in  circumstances  essentially  different,  the 
reason  of  the  Apostle's  advice  does  not  exist ;  and  it  is  manifest 
that  we  are  at  liberty  to  regulate  our  conduct  by  those  other  con- 
siderations, which  are  obvious  to  reason,  and  sanctioned  by  Scrip- 
ture. 

If  then  it  shall  appear,  that  any  direction  or  act  of  Christ  or  his 
apostles  relative  to  the  government  of  the  church,  was  grounded 
upon  peculiar  circumstances  then  existing,  and  not  on  general 
principles  ;  and  if  those  circumstances  have  now  ceased,  and  others, 
having  a  different  bearing  on  the  subject,  have  come  in  their 
place  ;  then,  I  apprehend,  that  direction  or  act  is  not  to  govern 
us.  With  the  exception  of  such  cases  we  must  regard  any  direc- 
tion of  Christ,  or  any  direction  or  act  of  his  apostles,  in  regard  to 
church  government,  as  establishing  a  principle  which  is  obligatory 
on  Christians  at  all  times. 

There  are,  in  a  general  point  of  view,  two  forms  of  church  gov- 
ernment. 1.  Prelacy^  or  government  administered  hy  prelates ^  or 
bishops.     2.   Government  of  a  popular  character. 


490  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

Prelacy  is  thus  described  bj  Hooker  :  "  A  bishop  is  a  minister 
of  God,  unto  Avhom  with  permanent  continuance,  there  is  given, 
not  only  power  of  administering  the  word  and  sacraments,  which  power 
other  presbyters  have,  but  also  a  further  power  to  ordain  ecclesias- 
tical persons,  and  a  poiver  of  chiefty  in  government  over  presby- 
ters as  well  as  laymen.  So  that  this  office  as  he  is  a  presbyter  or 
pastor,  consisteth  in  those  things  which  are  common  to  him  with 
other  pastors,  as  in  ministering  the  word  and  sacraments  ;  —  but 
those  things  incident  to  his  office,  which  properly  make  him  a  bishop, 
cannot  be  common  to  him  with  other  pastors.  Now  —  bishops  — 
are  either  at  large,  or  else  with  restraint ;  at  large,  when  the 
subject  of  their  government  —  is  not  tied  to  any  certain  place. 
Bishops  with  restraint  are  they,  whose  government  over  the  church 
is  contained  within  some  definite,  local  compass  beyond  which 
their  jurisdiction  reacheth  not."  Episcopalians  expressly  claim 
for  their  system  the  sanction  of  Scripture  and  the  primitive 
church,  and  maintain  that  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  there  have 
been  three  orders  of  ministers  in  the  church  of  Christ,  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons. 

In  my  deliberate  opinion,  I  differ  from  the  advocates  of  pre- 
lacy ;  and  I  shall  now  state  somewhat  particularly  the  reasons  of 
this  difference. 

My  first  reason  is,  that  the  leading  principles  of  prelacy,  as 
now  understood  and  practised,  are  not  auiJwrized  by  the  Christian 
Scriptures. 

The  constitution  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  has  been  considered 
by  some,  as  requiring,  or  warranting,  a  similar  constitution  in  the 
Christian  ministry.  In  the  Jewish  priesthood  there  were  three 
orders;  the  high  priest,  the  priests,  and  the  Levites.  But  there  is 
no  intimation  in  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Christian  ministry 
was  to  be  formed  after  the  model  of  the  former  priesthood.  The 
writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  takes  pains  to  show  that  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  which  was  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  is  done 
away  ;  that  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  only,  is  the  High  Priest  of  Chris- 
tians; and  that  all  who  are  set  apart  to  the  work  of  preaching 
the  gospel,  are  his  ministers,  or  servants.     There  is  a  wide  and 


PRELACY.  491 

obvious  difference  between  the  plan  of  the  gospel  ministry  as  laid 
down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  plan  of  the  priesthood,  as 
laid  down  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  whatever  may  be  pre- 
tended by  some  Episcopalians,  they  are  far  from  making  the 
Jewish  priesthood  their  model.  The  three  orders  among  episco- 
pal ministers  do  not  by  any  means  correspond  with  the  orders  in 
the  Jewish  priesthood.  And  any  attempt  to  make  them  more 
nearly  to  correspond,  would  end  in  a  still  more  visible  and  un- 
warrantable departure  from  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

It  is  clear,  that  there  is  no  foundation  for  prelacy  in  any  of  the 
appointments  or  instructions  of  Christ.  Take  his  appointment  of 
the  seventy  disciples,  who  were  sent  forth  to  teach,  to  work  mir- 
acles, and  to  call  sinners  to  repent  and  believe.  This  arrangement 
was  intended  for  important  purposes  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.  But  no  one  considers  it  as  permanent. 
And  if  it  had  been  designed  to  be  permanent,  it  would  be  as  far 
as  possible  from  giving  any  countenance  to  the  episcopal  scheme 
of  three  orders  in  the  ministry. 

In  the  next  place,  Jesus  chose  twelve  of  his  disciples  to  be  his 
constant  companions,  to  hear  his  instructions  and  witness  his  mir- 
acles, and  thus  to  be  trained  up  for  the  special  work  assigned 
them.  "  lie  ordained  twelve,"  says  Mark,  "  that  they  should  be 
with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to 
have  power  to  heal  sicknesses  and  to  cast  out  devils."  These 
disciples  Jesus  finally  commissioned  to  go  forth  as  his  apostles, 
and  qualified  them  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spii'it  to  be  witnesses 
of  his  miracles,  and  particularly  of  his  resurrection,  and  to  be 
infallible  teachers  and  guides.  See  Matt.  28:  19,  20.  Mark 
16:  15,  16.  Acts  1:  8.  The  work  to  which  they  were  called 
was  a  special  and  momentous  work.  It  was  the  work  of  pro- 
claiming the  gospel,  founding  the  first  churches,  establishing  the 
Christian  religion  by  preaching  and  by  miracles,  completing  the 
volume  of  inspiration,  and  exercising,  under  Christ,  a  paramount 
authority  in  all  the  concerns  of  religion.  Their  commission  and 
their  endowments  were   adapted    to  the   pecuUar  objects  which 


492  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

were  then  to  be  accomplisbed.  Those  peculiar  objects  having 
been  accomphshed,  the  pecuharities  of  their  office  ceased.  They 
were  indeed  reUgious  teachers,  ministers  of  the  gospel ;  and  as 
such,  they  have  successors.  But  they  were  teachers  and  minis- 
ters in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  with  peculiar  qualifications,  and  pe- 
culiar authority.  Considered  in  this  light,  they  have  no  succes- 
sors. Others  have  been  sent  forth  as  missionariesy  as  the  word 
apostles  literally  signifies.  But  those  first  Christian  missionaries 
were  distinguished  above  all  others ;  and  the  word  apostles,  in  a 
high  and  peculiar  sense,  has  been  appropriated  to  them.  Now 
how  does  the  fact  that  Christ  appointed  the  apostles  to  that  pe- 
culiar work,  and  distinguished  them  by  their  qualifications  from 
other  ministers,  prove  that  one  set  of  ministers  in  after  ages  is  to 
fill  an  office  and  possess  qualifications  above  others  ?  All  true 
ministers  of  Christ  take  place  of  the  apostles  considered  simply 
as  gospel  ministers.  But  Avhere  are  the  men  at  the  present  day, 
who  inherit  what  was  peculiar  to  the  apostolic  character  and 
office,  or  what  distinguished  the  apostles  from  other  gospel  minis- 
ters ?  The  welfare  and  even  the  continuance  of  the  church 
requires,  that  men,  properly  qualified,  should  from  time  to  time 
be  set  apart  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  ;  and  that  the  ministry 
should  be  a,  permanent  institution.  In  this  sense  there  is  a  suc- 
cession, I  do  not  say  an  uninterrupted,  but  a  real  succession  from 
the  apostles  to  the  present  time.  But  it  can  no  more  be  proved 
that  subsequent  ministers  of  the  gospel  share  the  peculiarities  of 
the  apostoUc  office,  than  that  they  share  the  peculiarities  of  the 
office  of  Moses  or  David.  When  a  special  and  temporary  work 
is  to  be  accomplished,  God  gives  men  special  qualifications,  and 
a  special,  temporary  commission.  And  when  there  is  an  ordinary 
work  to  be  accomplished,  a  work  which  is  to  be  continued  from 
age  to  age ;  God  gives  men  qualifications  and  invests  them  with 
an  office  suited  to  that  ordinary  work.  As  far  as  the  work  to  be 
done  by  ordinary  ministers  of  the  gospel  bears  a  resemblance  to 
the  work  which  was  to  be  done  by  Moses,  or  David,  or  the  twelve 
apostles,  so  far,  and  no  farther,  can  we  suppose  a  resemblance  be- 
tween them  in  regard  to  their  respective  offices  and  qualifications. 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  493 

So  far  as  the  peculiarities  of  the  work  assigned  to  Moses,  or  David, 
or  the  apostles  are  concerned,  a  resemblance  between  them  and 
ordinary  ministers  is  prechided. 

If  it  was  indeed  the  design  and  the  appointment  of  Christ, 
that  there  should  be  permanently  a  superior  order  in  the  gospel 
ministry,  siiaring  in  the  peculiarities  of  the  apostolic  office^  it  would 
certainly  be  reasonable  to  expect  them  to  be  possessed  of  the 
peculiar  qualifications  of  the  apostles,  and  with  qualifications 
above  those  of  the  inferior  orders.  But  I  know  not  that  the 
superior  order  of  ministers  in  the  Episcopal  church  pretend  to  be 
endued  with  any  of  the  peculiar  qualifications  of  the  apostles,  or 
with  qualifications  above  those  which  are  found  in  the  inferior 
orders.  And  I  am  sure  that  the  work  Avhich  prelates  take  upon 
themselves  to  perform,  is  widely  different  from  the  peculiar  work 
of  the  apostles,  —  in  some  respects  falling  short  of  it,  and  in 
other  respects  going  beyond  it.  "Whereas,  if  prelacy  were 
founded  upon  the  superior  oflSce  of  the  apostles,  it  ought  to  have 
substantially  the  same  functions  assigned  to  it,  not  varying  from 
its  standard  either  m  the  way  of  deficiency  or  excess.  But  in 
reality,  modern  prelates  are  altogether  precluded  from  the  princi- 
pal works  which  were  pecuhar  to  the  apostolic  office,  such  as 
being  witnesses  of  the  life  and  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
casting  out  devils,  and  doing  other  miracles,  and  preaching  and 
writing  under  the  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  while  in 
other  respects,  particularly  in  assuming  and  exercising  exclusive^: 
the  right  of  ordination,  they  transcend  the  powers  exercised  by 
the  apostles.  But  the  consideration  of  this  point  comes  more 
properly  under  another  head.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  present 
purpose  to  show,  that  the  existence  of  the  superior  office  and  superior 
endowments  of  the  apostles,  affi)rds  no  ground  for  the  existence  of  a 
superior  order  among  gospel  ministers  in  subsequent  ages.  In  other 
words  ;  it  having  been  the  will  of  Christ  that  the  apostles,  for 
the  special  purposes  then  to  be  accomplished,  should  be  invested 
with  distinguished  powers  and  hold  a  special  and  distinguished 
oflSce,  does  not  prove  it  to  be  his  will  that  a  particular  order  of 
ministers  should  exist  in  after  ages,  holding  an  office  like  that  of 

VOL.  III.  42 


494  PRELACY. 

the  apostles,  and  superior  to  that  of  ordinary  ministers.  Prelacy 
cannot  be  legitimately  founded  on  the  apostolic  office.  And  how 
it  comes  to  pass,  that  the  advocates  of  prelacy  rest  their  cause  so 
much  on  the  superior  authority  belonging  to  the  apostles,  it  is 
difficult  for  me  to  understand.  Their  reasoning  on  this  point  ap- 
pears to  be  "wholly  inconclusive,  unless  they  can  show  that  there  is 
noAV  the  same  necessity  for  the  office  of  prelates,  as  there  was 
originally  for  the  office  of  apostles. 

It  may  be  thought  that  the  passage,  Matt.  18:  18,  affi)rds  sup- 
port to  the  high  claims  of  bishops.  Christ  said  to  his  apostles, 
"Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven; 
and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 
But  what  does  this  prove  ?  The  apostles,  as  appointed  and  quali- 
fied by  Christ,  were  invested  with  peculiar  authority,  and  were 
enabled  infallibly  to  exercise  their  authority  in  the  business  of 
church  discipline;  for  this  was  the  subject  introduced  in  the 
three  preceding  verses.  They  were  to  have  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  such  measures,  that  their  instructions  and  their  decisions 
should  always  be  right,  and  their  acts  in  the  affair  of  binding  and 
loosing  should  be  confirmed  in  heaven.  But  this  proves  nothing 
as  to  three  orders  in  the  ministry.  And  it  is  no  proof  of  the 
superior  authority  of  bishops,  unless  it  is  made  to  appear  that 
they  possess  the  miraculous  endowments  which  belonged  to  the 
apostles.  In  connection  with  this,  take  the  passage,  John  20: 
22,  23.  "  Jesus  breathed  on  the  apostles,  and  said,  receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto 
them  ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  The 
authority  here  intended,  whatever  it  was,  belonged  to  the  apostles, 
as  endued  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  what  proof  does  it  afford  of 
the  authority  of  one  order  of  ministers  in  the  Episcopal  church 
above  that  of  other  orders  ?  Episcopalians  themselves  do  not  re- 
gard it  in  this  light.  For  when  the  bishop  ordains  priests,  he 
says  to  them,  "  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work 
of  a  priest  —  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven; 
and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained."  Now  the 
priest  actually  exercises  the  authority  thus  committed  to  him  by 


PRELACY.  495 

the  bishop.  But  how  does  he  exercise  it  ?  This  appears  from 
the  declaration  of  absolution,  or  remission  of  sins,  made  by  the 
priest  in  the  daily  service.  He  says:  "Almighty  God,  the  Fa- 
ther of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  —  hath  given  power  and  command- 
ment to  his  ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  his  people,  being 
penitent.,  the  remission  of  their  sins.  He  pardoneth  all  those  who 
truly  repent,  and  unfeignedly  believe  his  holy  gospel.  Wherefore 
let  us  beseech  him  to  grant  us  true  repentance,  etc."  This  then 
I  judge  to  be  the  meaning ;  that  when  it  is  said  to  the  priest  at 
his  ordination,  "  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  ;" 
he  is  authorized  to  declare^  that  God  will  forgive  those  who  repent, 
and  then  to  pray  for  repentance,  etc.  This  is  what  the  priest 
does  in  the  affair  of  absolution.  It  is  evident  that  the  bishop  is 
not  at  all  distinguished  above  the  priests,  in  this  affair  of  pro- 
nouncing absolution  to  the  penitent.  Whether  done  by  the  bishop 
or  priest,  it  is  merely  declaring  that  momentous  doctrine  of  the 
gospel,  that  God  will  forgive  the  penitent.  And  the  right  to  de- 
clare this  truth,  which  belongs  alike  to  all  gospel  ministers,  is  no 
proof  of  the  superiority  of  one  order  above  another.  This  right, 
or  authority,  was  exercised  by  the  apostles,  as  inspired  men,  and 
therefore  infallible.  It  is  exercised  by  ministers  at  this  day,  not 
as  inspired,  —  not  as  having  received  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  pecu- 
liar sense  in  which  the  apostles  received  it,  but  as  instructed  by 
inspired  men.  Understood  as  a  declaration  of  a  gospel  truth, 
followed  by  a  prayer  for  repentance  and  pardon,  the  rite  or  prac- 
tice of  absolution  is  very  suitable,  and  occasions  no  mistake.  But 
the  application  to  any  uninspired  men  of  the  exact  words  which 
Christ  addressed  to  his  inspired  apostles,  is,  in  my  apprehension, 
unwarrantable.  And  I  am  glad  to  see  in  the  ordination  ser- 
vice, that  a  second  form  is  provided,  in  which  the  words  of 
Christ  to  his  apostles,  John  20:  22  are  omitted. 

Having  found  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  appointment  of  the 
apostles  to  their  peculiar  office,  which  can  give  support  to  prelacy  ; 
I  proceed  to  say,  that  prelacy  can  receive  no  support  from  the 
instructions  of  Christ.  If  we  could  find  that,  in  any  of  his  teach- 
ings addressed  publicly  to  the  multitude,  or  privately  to  the  apos- 


496  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

ties,  he  made  it  known  as  his  will,  that  there  should  in  following 
ages  be  different  ranks  or  orders  among  his  ministers,  there  would 
be  no  place  left  for  any  question  or  hesitation  on  our  part.  But 
no  intimation  of  this  kind  appears  in  any  of  the  instructions  of 
Christ  related  by  the  Evangelists,  or  in  anything  which  the  in- 
spired apostles  said  or  did  after  the  ascension  of  Christ.  If  the 
apostles  had  on  any  occasion  signified,  that,  in  their  free  inter- 
course with  Christ,  they  had  learnt  it  to  be  his  intention,  that 
there  should  be  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  either  immediately 
or  ultimately ;  this  Avould  be  a  conclusive  argument  for  prelacy. 
But  nothing  like  this  can  be  found. 

A  sermon  was  delivered  in  Boston,  by  an  American  prelate,*  in 
which  he  gives  a  description  of  the  character  and  reward  of  a  faithful 
bishop,  which  is  worthy  of  the  serious  attention  of  every  gospel  min- 
ister. I  now  refer  to  it,  because  it  contains  a  passage  relative  to  the 
subject  which  has  just  been  under  consideration.  The  author  un- 
dertakes to  reply  to  the  objection  urged  against  Episcopacy,  from 
the  alleged  uncertainty  of  the  succession  of  bishops.  He  says  ;  "  Our 
answer  is,  that  the  promise  of  perpetuity  is  from  the  lips  of  him,  who 
has  explicitly  declared  that  his  words  shall  not  fail.  '  As  my  father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.'  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  The  same  power,  which  has  preserved 
the  Scriptures  true,  through  the  successive  copies  and  editions, 
amidst  the  distractions  of  persecution,  the  perversities  of  ignorance, 
and  the  distortions  of  heresy  and  schism,  so  that,  at  this  moment, 
the  pure  word  of  God  can  be  ascertained,  is  fully  adequate  to  the 
faithful  preservation  of  the  ministry." — "  It  is  not  to  human  plan- 
ning, but  to  divine  interposition,  that  we  appeal.  The  promise 
is  from  the  lips  of  him  whose  power  is  adequate  to  the  fulfil- 
ment."— Again  he  says ;  "  We  may  repose,  with  unshaken  confi- 
dence, on  the  ability  of  the  Promisor  to  fulfil  his  pledge." 

We  heartily  agree  with  the  prelate,  that  we  "  may  repose,  with 
unshaken  confidence,  on  the  ability  of  the  Promisor  to  fulfil  his 
pledge ;"  that  his  "  power  is  adequate  to  the  fulfilment  of  his 
promise,"  that  is,  "  to  the  faithful  preservation  of  the  ministry  ;" 

*  The  Right  Rev.  William  H.  De  Lancey,  D.  D. 


PRELACY.  497 

and  also  that  the  promise  of  Christ  implies "  a  succession  of  val- 
idly commissioned  ministers,  to  the  end  of  the  world."     All  this 
we  hold  as  strongly  as  Episcopalians  can  do.     With  devout  grati- 
tude we  receive  the  promise  of  our  Redeemer,  as  a  blessed  en- 
couragement to  all  his  faithful  ministers,  whether  in  the  Episcopal, 
Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Baptist  or  Methodist  Church.     True 
gospel  ministers  of  different  denominations  have  relied  upon  this 
gracious  promise,  and  have  experienced  its  fulfilment,  and  have 
been  animated  and  comforted  by  it  in  their  labors.     And  I  can- 
not doubt  that  ministers  of  other  denominations  have  received  the 
benefits  of  the  promise  as  uniformly,  and  in  as  high  a  degree,  as 
those  of  the  Episcopal  church.     Nor  can  I  admit  that  the  benefits 
they  have  thus  received,  are  stolen  benefits,  —  benefits  to  which 
Christ  has  given  them  no  title.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  be- 
stowed the  benefits  of  his  presence  as  readily  and  as  bountifully  upon 
good  ministers  who  are  out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  as  upon  those 
who  are  in  it.     The  Lord  Jesus  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  and 
in  the  fulfilment  of  his  gracious  promise,  he  makes  no  difierence 
among  pious  and  faithful  ministers,  because  they  differ  as  to  out- 
ward forms.     If  Episcopalians  set  up  an  exclusive  claim  to  the 
promise,  that  claim  we  know  will  not  be  sanctioned  by  their  Lord 
and  Master.     We  appeal  from  them  to  him.     And  we  shall  con- 
tinue to  go  to  him,  and  plead  his  promise,  and  beseech  him  to 
grant  his  presence,  with  all  the  blessings  involved  in  it,  not  only 
to  us,  but  to  all  his  faithful  ministers,  whether  they  follow  with  us 
or  not,  being  fully  persuaded,  that  whatever  straitness  or  partial- 
ity there  may  be  among  poor,  imperfect,  erring  men,  there  is 
none  in  him.     Yes  ;  we  shall  always  prize  that  promise  of  Christ, 
and  shall  apply  it  to  ourselves,  undeserving  as  we  are.     Sensible 
that  we  are  utterly  insufficient  for  the  arduous  duties  of  the  min- 
istry, we  shall  trust  in  his  all  sufficient  grace,  praying  him  to  be 
with  us  according  to  his  word.     And  why  should  any  of  those  who 
differ  from  us  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  forms,  attempt  to  exclude 
us  from  the  benefits  of  Christ's  precious  promise  ?     In  his  infinite 
fulness  is  there  not  enough  for  them,  and  for   us  ?     With  our 
present  views,  we  shall  continue  to  appropriate   the   promise  to 

42* 


498  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

ourselves.  xVncl  if  we  are  ever  convinced  that  it  does  not  belong 
to  us,  we  shall  at  once  abandon  the  ministry,  well  knowing  the 
truth  of  Christ's  declaration ;  "  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing." 

The  author  of  the  able  sermon  referred  to  considers  the  promise 
of  Christ,  "  Lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,"  as  a  clear  and  certain  proof  of  the  perpetual  succession 
of  bishops.  Bishops,  that  is,  prelatical  bishops,  he  regards  as 
the  successors  of  the  apostles.  In  a  qualified  sense,  bishops,  such 
as  he  describes  in  his  sermon,  are  doubtless  successors  of  the 
apostles ;  that  is,  they  follow  or  come  after  the  apostles,  and 
sustain  an  oflfice  in  some  respects  like  that  of  the  apostles.  In  a 
limited  sense,  they  carry  forward  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry, 
which,  in  a  higher  sense,  was  committed  to  the  apostles  at  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  this  qualified 
sense,  I  hold  that  faithful  bishops  are  successors  of  the  apostles. 
But  are  they  the  only  successors  ?  And  does  the  promise  of  Christ 
belong  exclusively  to  them  ?  If  bishops  are  the  only  successors 
of  the  apostles,  and  if  the  promise  of  Christ  belongs  to  none 
except  bishops ;  then  what  becomes  of  the  great  body  of  gospel 
ministers  in  the  Episcopal  church  and  in  other  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  who  are  not  bishops  ?  There  are  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  on  eaxth  many  hundreds  of  gospel  ministers  to  one  prelate. 
What,  I  ask,  becomes  of  all  these,  left  as  they  are  without  the 
presence  of  their  Lord  and  Master  ?  But  if  the  promise  relates 
to  gospel  ministers  who  are  not  bishops ;  then  it  may  be  fulfilled 
towards  a  succession  of  such  ministers.  And  if  so,  how  does  it 
imply  a  succession  of  bishops?  And  wherein  lies  the  strength 
of  the  argument,  by  which  the  author  attempts  to  prove  the  per- 
petual succession  of  bishops,  that  is,  prelates,  from  the  promise 
of  Christ  ? 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  promise  belongs  primarily  and  by  way 
of  eminence  to  bishops,  and,  in  a  lower  sense,  to  the  other  order  of 
ministers,  ordained  by  bishops.  But  how  is  this  made  to  appear  ? 
There  is  nothing  in  the  promise  which  indicates,  that  it  was  meant 
to  be  understood  in  these  different  senses,  as  appUed  to  different 
orders  of  mmisters.     The  promise  is  very  simple.     "Lo,  I  am 


PRELACY.  499 

with  t/oit  ahvay,  even  to  the  end  of  the  -world."  With  -whom? 
He  does  not  say  with  one  order  of  ministers  in  a  higher  sense, 
and  with  another  in  a  lower  sense.  He  promised  to  be  with  the 
apostles,  and,  by  implication,  with  others  after  them  who  should 
possess  the  character  of  gospel  ministers,  and  be  engaged  in  car- 
rying on,  in  a  restricted  sense,  the  great  work  which  the  apostles 
began.  The  promise  may  indeed  be  fulfilled  in  different  measures, 
as  other  promises  are.  Ministers  who  arc  distinguished  for  their 
piety  and  faithfulness,  such  as  Leighton,  Scott,  Cecil,  Henry 
Martyn,  Baxter,  Edwards,  Braincrd,  Payson,  Andrew  Fuller,  and 
Davies,  will  undoubtedly  enjoy  the  presence  of  Christ  in  a  higher 
degree,  than  ministers  less  pious  and  faithful.  And  this  is  equally 
true  in  regard  to  ministers  of  different  denominations.  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  a  Great  King  ;  and  in  administering  the  affairs  of 
his  great  kingdom,  he  does  not  proceed  according  to  the  narrow 
and  exclusive  notions  which  so  often  influence  the  minds  of  men. 
His  thoughts  and  ways  are  exceedingly  different  from  ours.  Show 
me  a  gospel  minister  of  whatever  name,  who  is  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  preaches  the  truth  in  love  and  fidelity  ;  and  you  show 
me  one,  to  whom  Christ  will  especially  grant  his  promised  presence. 
And  surely  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise  manifests  to  whom  he 
intended  it  should  belong.  For  does  he  not  act  according  to  his 
intentions  ?  I  ask  the  pious  author  of  the  sermon  before  me,  and 
other  Episcopal  ministers  like  him,  whether  it  is  not  so.  And 
they  will  permit  me  also  to  ask,  whether  they  think  their  Blessed 
Lord  is  present  with  them  because  they  are  JSj^iscopalians, —  or, 
because  they  truly  love  him,  and  faithfully  preach  his  gospel.  If 
any  of  them  say,  for  the  former  reason,  that  is,  because  they 
are  Episcopalians ;  then,  I  ask,  for  what  reason  Christ  is  so 
evidently  and  so  graciously  present  with  those  ministers  who  are 
not  Episcopalians  ?  But  if  they  say,  for  the  latter  reason,  that 
is,  because  they  truly  love  him,  and  do  the  work  of  the  ministry 
faithfully ;  then  they  will  doubtless  admit,  that  other  ministers, 
possessing  the  same  character,  may  regard  the  promise  as  made 
to  them  also,  and  may  expect  to  realize  its  accomphshments. 
There  are,  besides  bishops,  multitudes   of  gospel   ministers,  who 


500  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

have  the  heart  and  who  do  the  work  of  true  and  faithful  servants 
of  Christ,  and  to  whom  he  does  in  fact,  and  according  to  his 
intention,  fulfil  his  precious  promise.  And  if  all  that  is  implied 
in  the  promise  has  or  may  have  its  accomplishment  in  a  succession 
of  those  whom  the  omniscient  Redeemer  regards  and  treats  as  good 
and  faithful  ministers,  though  not  bishops ;  then  the  question  re- 
turns ;  how  does  the  promise  prove  a  succession  of  bishops,  in 
distinction  from  other  gospel  ministers  ?  The  promise  of  Christ 
is  a  matter  of  great  practical  moment ;  and  I  have  chosen  to 
treat  it  as  such.  And  let  me  say  again,  so  that  it  may  not  be 
forgotten;  —  if  being  included  within  the  reach  of  this  gracious 
promise,  and  enjoying  the  benefits  of  its  fulfilment,  proves  men 
to  be  successors  of  the  apostles  ;  then  faithful  Congregational, 
Presbyterian,  and  Baptist  ministers  are  such  successors,  as  truly 
as  bishops;  and  the  promise  no  more  proves  the  continued  exis- 
tence of  these,  than  of  those.  The  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
by  the  unchangeable  Promiser,  certainly  shows  how  he  intended 
his  promise  to  be  understood  and  applied.  Pious  and  faithful 
bishops,  such  as  are  set  before  us  in  this  sermon,  are,  I  doubt 
not,  in  an  important,  though  qualified  sense,  successors  of  the 
apostles,  to  whom  the  promise  belongs.  Pious  and  faithful  pres- 
byters and  deacons  in  the  Episcopal  church,  are  also  successors 
of  the  apostles.  Otherwise  how  could  they,  equally  with  bishops, 
be  entitled  to  the  promise  ?  Thus  far  the  strong  advocates  of 
prelacy  agree  with  us.  And  here  they  stop.  But  He  who  is 
Head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  he  bought  with  his 
own  blood,  does  not  stop  here.  Thet/  limit  the  succession  of  true 
gospel  ministers  and  the  intent  of  Christ's  promise  to  bishops,  and 
those  who  are  ordained  by  bishops.  Not  so  with  him  who  made 
the  promise,  and  who  has  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth.  Se 
speaks  and  acts  on  larger  principles.  There  is  nothing  at  all 
either  in  the  language  of  the  promise,  or  in  its  obvious  mean- 
ing, or  in  the  manner  of  its  fulfilment,  which  restricts  it  to 
a  succession  of  bishops,  or  which  proves  the  existence  of  such  a 
succession,  any  more  than  a  succession  of  other  gospel  ministers. 
And  if  we  would  agree  with  our  blessed  Lord,  —  if  we  would  have 


PRELACY.  501 

our  views  and  feelings  correspond  with  his  mind,  as  expressed  in 
his  word  and  providence  ;  we  must  guard  not  only  against  pride 
and  bitterness,  but  against  all  narrowness  and  bigotry  and  party 
spirit,  and  must  pray  for  enlargement  of  heart,  and  must  rejoice 
in  the  wide  extent  of  Christ's  promise,  and  in  the  length  and 
breadth  of  his  love. 

It  is  in  this  way  that  I  dispose  of  the  passage  quoted  above, 
in  which  the  author  cites  the  promise  of  Christ,  Matt.  28 :  20, 
as  a  plain,  conclusive  argument,  on  which  he  confidently  relies,  to 
prove  the  perpetual  succession  of  bisJwps.  I  maintain,  that  neither 
the  occasion,  nor  the  language  of  the  promise,  nor  its  obvious 
meaning,  nor  the  facts  of  its  accomplishment,  prove  any  such  thing. 
Episcopalians  may  affirm,  that  it  is  a  principle  settled  and  certain, 
that  bishops  are  the  only  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  that  they 
and  those  ordained  by  them  are  the  only  authorized  and  lawful 
ministers  of  Christ.  What  I  have  aimed  to  show  in  these  remarks, 
is,  that  this  principle  cannot  be  proved  from  the  promise  of  Christ. 
And  I  can  no  more  admit,  that  bishops  and  those  who  are  ordained 
by  them,  are  the  only  authorized  and  lawful  ministers  of  Christ, 
than  that  hereditary  kings  and  nobles  are  the  only  authorized  and 
lawful  rulers. 


LECTURE    CXXII. 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.      PRELACY. 

In  the  last  Lecture,  I  stated  it  as  my  first  reason  against  pre- 
lacy, that  it  is  not  authorized  by  the  Christian  Scriptures.  In 
discussing  this  point,  I  referred  you  particularly  to  the  appoint- 
ments and  instructions'  of  Christ,  during  his  pubhc  ministry  on 
earth. 

Let  us  now  inquire  whether  anything  favorable  to  prelacy  can 
be  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;  —  anything  in  the  conduct 
of  those,  whom  Christ  appointed  to  preach  his  gospel  and  propa- 
gate his  religion,  which  implied,  that  there  should  be  three  orders 
in  the  ministry,  and  that  one  of  these  orders,  namely,  bishops, 
should  exercise  authority,  not  only  over  the  churches,  but  over 
two  subordinate  orders  of  ministers.  Had  the  apostles  so  under- 
stood the  matter,  they  would  doubtless  have  said  or  done  some- 
thing to  show  it.  For  they  were  commissioned  and  quahfied  to  be 
witnesses  and  ministers  of  Christ,  and,  in  his  name,  to  teach  the 
doctrines  and  laws  of  his  kingdom,  to  establish  churches,  and  to 
settle  everything  pertaining  to  their  order  and  prosperity.  And 
it  was  manifestly  of  great  importance,  that  they  should  give 
a  right  direction  to  the  great  concerns  of  Christianity  at  the  out- 
set. What,  I  ask,  is  the  practice  of  zealous  bishops  of  the  present 
day,  who  believe  themselves  called  to  fill  an  office  similar  to  the 
apostles  ?  Do  they  not  on  all  occasions  make  the  doctrine  of 
prelacy  very  prominent  ?  And  if  they  go  to  places  where  Christ 
has  not  been  known,  and  engage  in  the  great  work  of  preaching 


PRELACY.  503 

the  gospel  and  establishing  churches ;  do  they  not,  among  the 
very  first  things,  make  known  their  principles  of  church  govern- 
ment ?  And  whenever  they  organize  a  church,  do  they  not  take 
good  care  to  have  those  principles  well  understood,  and  to  arrange 
ever^^thing  according  to  the  Episcopal  plan  ?  Their  peculiar  belief 
naturally  leads  to  such  a  practice.  And  if  their  belief  is  right, 
their  practice  is  right ;  and  every  one  who  honestly  entertains 
that  beHef,  will  show  it  by  his  practice.  But  how  was  it  with  the 
apostles,  who  were  called  of  God  to  take  the  lead  in  establishing 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  among  Jews  and  gentiles,  and  who  wefcT 
responsible  for  giving,  from  the  first,  a  right  direction  and  form  to 
the  churches  ?  If  they  had  been  led  by  the  teaching  of  Christ, 
or  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  hold  the  ecclesiastical  principles  now  held 
by  Episcopalians  ;  would  they  not  have  been  as  honest  and  faith- 
ful as  Episcopalians  now  are  ;  —  and  would  they  not  have  done,  in 
some  good  measure,  as  Episcopalians  do  ?  Look,  then,  into  the 
history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  carefully  notice  their  par- 
ticular proceedings  and  instructions,  and  see  Avhether  they  did  as 
Episcopalians  do  ;  —  see  whether  they  did  anything  or  taught 
anything,  which  shows,  that  they  really  meant  to  establish  the 
Episcopal  plan  of  church  government.  Do  you  find  anything  in 
the  account  given  of  the  choice  of  one  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas  ? 
Do  you  find  anything  in  the  proceedings  of  the  apostles  on  the 
daj^  of  Pentecost  ?  Do  you  find  anything  in  chapter  vi,  where 
we  have  an  account  of  the  choice  of  seven  men,  commonly  called 
deacons,  Avhom  the  apostles  set  apart  to  their  Avork  by  prayer  and 
the  imposition  of  hands  ?  What  is  there  in  this  transaction,  which 
is  favorable  to  any  part  of  the  Episcopal  plan  of  church  polity  ? 
These  deacons  or  servants  of  the  church  were  chosen  and  set 
apart  as  almoners,  that  is,  distributers  of  the  charities  of  the 
church  ;  not  as  an  order  of  gos[)el  ministers,  or  preachers,  though 
some  of  them  afterwards  preached.  But  what  resemblance  has 
this  transaction  to  the  proceeding  of  bishops  in  ordaining  those 
whom  they  call  deacons,  and  who  constitute  the  lowest  order  of 
Episcopal  ministers? 

In  Acts  XV.  we  are  informed  of  disputes  and  diflBculties  which 


504  CHURCH    GOVERNMEXT. 

arose  at  Antioch  respecting  circumcision,  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  thej  were  adjusted.  It  was  a  very  important  affair,  and 
required  the  exercise  of  the  highest  wisdom  and  the  highest 
authority.  But  by  whom  was  it  decided  ?  Not  by  a  bishop  ;  not 
by  an  apostle,  nor  by  a  number  of  apostles ;  but  by  the  apostles, 
and  eldei's,  and  "  the  whole  church  "  at  Jerusalem.  Was  there 
anything  in  the  mode  of  proceeding  on  that  occasion,  which  was  in 
any  respect  like  that  which  is  marked  out  by  the  rules  of  the  epis- 
copal church.  Was  there  any  appearance  of  a  prelate,  either  at 
Antioch  or  at  Jerusalem  ?  In  those  large  churches,  was  there,  in 
this  important  and  difficult  case,  any  exercise  of  prelatical  author- 
ity, even  by  the  apostles  ?  But  I  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  to 
this  case  again.  AU  that  my  present  object  requires  is  to  show, 
that  what  took  place  at  Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  as  here  related, 
gives  no  support  to  the  episcopal  plan  of  church  polity. 

The  next  passage  in  the  Acts,  which  relates  to  our  subject,  is 
chapter  xx.  The  Apostle  Paul  gathered  together  the  elders  or 
presbyters  of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  that  he  might  make  his 
farewell  address  to  them.  But  there  is  nothing  in  his  address 
to  those  presbyters,  or  in  what  we  learn  of  the  state  of  things 
in  the  church  at  Ephesus,  which  can  give  any  support  to  pre- 
lacy. Let  any  one  carefully  read  this  chapter,  and  then  say, 
whether  there  is  any  reason  to  think,  that  Paul,  Avho  had  a 
direct  agency  in  the  first  formation  of  that  church,  which  doubt- 
less comprised  several  congregations,  established  difierent  orders 
of  ministers  ?  Is  there  anything  which  implies,  that  one  of  those 
called  elders,  was  invested  with  authority  over  the  others  ?  Tak- 
ing everything  into  view,  can  we  find  the  least  evidence,  that  Panl 
did,  Avhat  any  Episcopal  bishop  would  now  do  in  a  similar  case, 
that  is,  that  when  he  established  the  church  or  churches  at  Ephe- 
sus, he  introduced  prelacy,  and  that,  among  the  officers  of  the 
church  whom  he  addressed,  there  was  a  prelate,  that  is,  a  bishop, 
having  authority  over  the  pi-esbyters  ?  But  this  case  will  be 
brought  up  again  under  another  head. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  tlie  epistles,  and  inquire  whether  they 
give  any  support  to  Episcopacy. 


PRELACY.  505 

Paul  directed  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  thus  :  "  To  all  the 
saints  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deaconsJ'^  This,  you  will 
see  in  a  moment,  is  no  argument  for  prelacy,  as  there  is  abundant 
evidence.  Episcopalians  themselves  being  judges,  that  bishop  and 
elder,  or  presbyter,  were  used  by  the  Apostle  as  synonymous 
terms.  This  appears  also  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  chapter  i.  Paul 
directs  Tifcus  to  ordain  elders,  adding  a  particular  description  of 
the  quaUfications  which  they  must  possess,  and  showing  clearly, 
before  he  has  done,  that  by  bishop  and  elder  he  means  the  same 
oflScer.  In  Eph.  4:  11,  the  Apostle  says,  that  Christ  "  gave  some 
apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pas- 
tors and  teachers  —  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  etc."  But  what 
is  there  in  all  this,  which  is  favorable  to  the  Episcopal  scheme  ? 
Here,  indeed,  different  orders  of  ministers  are  mentioned  ;  but 
they  are  five  orders,  not  three  ;  and  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of 
the  orders  established  in  the  Episcopal  church,  either  bishops, 
presbyters,  or  deacons.  Besides,  the  Apostle  does  not  give  the 
least  intimation  that  one  of  these  orders  was  set  over  the  other 
orders.  It  will  be  natural  to  take  this  passage  in  connection  with 
1  Cor.  12:  28  ;  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles, 
secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles,  gifts  of 
healing,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues."  Here  are 
eight  varieties.  The  first  three  are  orders  of  ecclesiastical  offi- 
cers ;  but  they  have  no  correspondence  with  the  three  orders  in 
the  Episcopal  church.  The  patssage  seems  to  be  intended  to  mark 
different  classes  of  duties,  or  different  departments  of  labor,  rather 
than  different  orders  or  ranks  of  church  officers.  If  you  wiU 
excuse  me,  I  will  attempt  some  illustration  of  the  Apostle's  mean- 
ing, by  what  exists  in  this  Seminary.  Here  the  officers  are  all 
Professors,  all  gospel  ministers,  all  pastors  and  teachers ;  and  all 
are  of  the  same  rank,  and,  in  many  respects,  attend  to  the  same 
duties.  Yet  they  fill  different  departments,  and  with  reference  to 
those  departments,  they  have  different  titles,  marking  the  particu- 
lar work  assigned  to  them ;  as.  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature, 
Professor  of  the  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature,  Professor  of 
Christian  Theology,  Professor  of  Sacred  Rhetoric,  Professor  of 

VOL.  III.  43 


S06  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT, 

Ecclesiastical  History.  But  instead  of  this,  thej  might,  properly 
enough,  be  designated  by  five  distinct  names,  as  the  Greek  Exe- 
gete,  (if  I  may  coin  a  word,)  the  Hebrew  Exegete,  the  Theolo- 
gian, the  Rhetorician,  and  the  Historian  ;  —  though  it  comes  out, 
that  they  all,  in  a  sort,  teach  exegesis,  and  Rhetoric,  and  History, 
and  all,  doubtless,  are  Theologians. 

It  may  be  thought  that  the  case  of  Matthias,  and  Barnabas,  and 
some  others,  who  were  called  apostles,  furnishes  an  argument  in 
favor  of  prelacy.  As  to  Matthias  ;  he  was  appointed  to  fill  a 
vacancy  made  by  the  apostasy  of  Judas,  and  so  came  to  be  one  of 
the  twelve  apostles,  not  a  successor  of  the  apostles.  And  it  is  very 
easy  to  account  for  it  that  Barnabas  and  others  should  be  called 
apostles,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  engaged  as  missionaries  m 
the  same  general  work  of  preaching  the  gospel  with  the  apostles, 
and  perhaps  being  endued  with  miraculous  gifts ;  though  the  chief 
peculiarities  of  the  apostolic  oflSce  did  not  belong  to  them.  At  any 
rate,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  sustained  an  office  like  that  of 
prelates ;  and  of  course,  they  cannot  be  referred  to  as  aflfording 
any  support  to  prelacy. 

Episcopalians  have  argued  in  favor  of  prelacy  from  1  Tim. 
1:  20.  Paul,  speaking  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  says : 
*'  Whom  I  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to 
blaspheme."  The  sum  of  the  argument  is  this  :  Paul,  in  the 
exercise  af  his  authority/  as  an  Apostle,  administered  church  disci- 
pline upon  two  notorious  offenders  in  the  church  at  JEphesus. 
Bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  are  in  this  respect 
invested  with  the  same  authority;  and  therefore  it  belongs  to 
them  to  administer  church  discipline.  Let  us  examine  this  argu- 
ment. 

The  punishment  of  these  apostates  at  Ephesus,  like  that  of  the 
incestuous  person  at  Corinth,  was,  I  think,  preternatural.  The 
language  plainly  denotes  something  more  than  simple  excommuni- 
cation. The  power  of  the  Apostle  to  inflict  such  punishment,  was 
miraculous,  and  was  as  real  though  not  so  remarkable  an  instance 
of  supernatural  agency,  as  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  Ananias 
and  Sapphira.     This  miraculous  power  belonged  preeminently  to 


PRELACY.  507 

the  apostles.  But  surelj  the  exercise  of  this  power  in  some  extra- 
ordinary cases  was  not  intended  to  make  void  the  precept  of 
Christ  in  Matt,  xviii,  as  to  the  ordinary  treatment  of  offences.  If 
the  fact,  that  Paul,  by  his  supernatural  power,  as  an  Apostle, 
inflicted  such  a  punishment  upon  heinous  offenders,  proves  any- 
thing relevant  to  the  case  in  hand,  it  proves  that  modem  bishops 
are  competent  to  do  the  same  as  the  apostles  did.  And  if  it  proves 
this,  it  proves  that  bishops  may  now  write  inspired  epistles  as  the 
apostles  did. 

Episcopalians  hold,  that  the  church  at  Ephesus  had  a  bishop, 
that  is,  Timothy,  as  well  as  presbyters ;  and  they  hold  that  a 
bishop  is  entrusted  with  the  same  power  of  administering  church 
discipline,  as  belonged  to  the  apostles.  Timothy,  then,  the  bishop 
of  Ephesus,  had  the  power,  and,  no  doubt,  he  knew  that  he  had  it. 
And  if  so,  why  did  he  not  exercise  it  ?  And  why  did  Paul,  who 
had  given  it  to  the  bishops,  interfere  with  it  ? 

According  to  the  reasoning  of  Episcopalians,  the  Apostle's 
exercising  the  power  of  church  discipline  in  this  case,  is  a  proof 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  church,  or  the  elders  of  the  chm-ch. 
And  does  it  not  equally  prove  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  bishop  ? 
The  argument  then  seems  to  stand  thus  :  A  bishop,  that  is,  Timo- 
thy, is  a  successor  of  the  apostles,  and  is  invested  with  the  sole 
power  of  administering  discipline  in  the  church.  But  the  Apostle 
comes  forward,  and  exercises  that  power  himself  in  the  very  diocese 
of  Bishop  Timothy  ;  —  which  shows  very  clearly,  they  say,  that  the 
power  does  not  belong  either  to  the  church,  or  to  the  j^f^sbyters ; 
and,  if  the  argument  is  straight,  it  shows  equally  that  it  does  not 
belong  to  the  bishop. 

If  we  should  extend  our  inquiries  further,  the  result  would  be 
the  same  ;  namely,  that  prelacy,  as  now  understood  and  prac- 
tised, is  not  founded  upon  the  Christian  Scriptures.  The  ablest 
advocates  of  prelacy  do  not  pretend  that  it  is.  This  is  my  first 
objection  to  the  Episcopal  scheme  of  ecclesiastical  polity.  And  it 
is  in  my  mind,  an  objection  of  no  small  weight.  For  it  is  to  be 
kept  in  mind,  that  Christ  was  the  Founder  and  Head  of  the 
church  ;  and  it  is  surely  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  would,  in 


508  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

his  own  personal  ministry,  or  by  the  ministry  of  those  whom  he 
appointed  and  qualified  to  act  in  liis  stead,  do  all  which  was  neces- 
sary to  the  due  establishment  and  subsequent  prosperity  of  his 
kingdom  on  earth.  It  is  certain  that  he  and  his  inspired  apostles 
knew  what  was  necessary.  And  considering  what  their  relation 
to  the  church  was,  and  what  was  the  work  they  undertook,  and 
how  deep  an  interest  they  felt  in  it,  and  how  great  their  zeal  and 
how  constant  their  efforts  for  its  full  accomplishment ;  we  must 
regard  the  fact,  that  there  is  nothing  in  their  recorded  instructions 
or  acts  which  gives  support  to  prelacy,  as  a  clear  indication  that 
they  did  not  look  upon  it  as  properly  belonging  to  the  Christian 
establishment.  If  then  the  matter  ended  here,  and  nothing  more 
appeared  than  this  absence  of  clear  and  explicit  Scripture  evidence 
in  favor  of  prelacy  ;  I  should  feel  myself  constrained  to  pause,  and 
to  ask,  how  could  this  be,  if  Christ  and  the  apostles  meant  to 
establish  prelacy  in  the  church  ? 

But  the  New  Testament  is  not  only  destitute  of  evidence  in 
favor  of  prelacy,  but  contains  much  evidence  against  it.  This  is 
my  second  reason  against  prelacy,  namely,  that  there  is  in  the 
instructions  of  Christ,  and  in  the  instructions  and  acts  of  his 
apostles,  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  against  the  Episcopal 
scheme,  both  as  to  church  discipline,  and  as  to  different  orders  in 
the  ministry. 

The  New  Testament  furnishes  evidence  against  the  episcopal 
scheme,  in  regard  to  tlie  treatment  of  personal  offences  and  other 
difficulties  in  the  church.  On  this  subject  Jesus  Christ  gave  a 
particular  direction  to  his  disciples  ;  Matt.  18:  15 — 17,  "  If  thy 
brother  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between 
thee  and  him  alone.  If  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy 
brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or 
two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word 
may  be  established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it 
to  the  church.  But  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican."  This  is  a  general 
direction  from  Christ  himself  for  the  treatment  of  offences.  It 
manifestly  had  respect  to  future  time  ;  for  there  was  not,  as  yet, 


PRELACY.  509 

any  regularly  organized  Christian  church,  that  could  act,  as  here 
required,  in  the  business  of  discipline.  The  direction  of  Christ 
requires,  that  the  church,  that  is,  the  assembly  of  believers,  should 
ultimately  hear,  and  judge,  and  act  in  regard  to  offences  commit- 
ted by  its  members.  This  mode  of  proceeding  is  palpably  at 
variance  with  the  system  of  Episcopacy,  which  places  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  respects,  in  the 
hands  of  the  bishop.  The  parish  minister  may  have  a  subordinate 
agency  in  the  discipline  of  offenders.  But  ultimately  the  whole 
power  belongs  to  the  bishop.  On  this  plan,  the  proceeding  from 
beginning  to  end,  must  be  different  from  that  required  by  Christ. 
And  to  bring  his  direction  to  correspond  with  the  Episcopal  plan, 
you  must  make  it  stand  thus :  If  thy  brother  trespass  against 
thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault,  etc.  If  he  neglect  to  hear  thee, 
take  one  or  two  others.  —  And  if  he  neglect  to  hear  them, 
tell  it,  —  not  to  the  church,  but  to  the  minister  of  the  parish,  and, 
at  last,  to  the  bishop.  But  the  minister  is  not  the  church,  and  the 
Bishop  is  not  the  church. 

See  now  what  was  the  judgment  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  had 
so  important  an  agency  in  establishing  Christian  churches  ;  and 
what  direction  he  gave,  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  offences. 
A  gross  crime  was  committed  by  a  member  of  the  church  at 
Corinth  ;  and  the  Apostle  directed  the  church,  the  whole  church, 
to  come  together,  and  act  in  excluding  the  offender.  Now  what 
is  there  in  the  doings  of  any  Episcopal  church,  which  agrees  with 
this  apostolic  direction  ?  In  what  instance  is  the  complaint 
against  an  offender  brought  before  the  church  for  decision  ?  In 
what  instance  are  the  members  of  the  church  gathered  together  to 
act  in  cutting  off  a  man  from  their  fellowship  ?  How  is  it  that 
Episcopahans  so  easily  overlook  the  direction  of  an  apostle,  and 
the  example  of  a  primitive  church  acting  according  to  his  direc- 
tion, and  then  make  so  much  of  the  opinions  and  conduct  of  erring 
Christians  in  after  ages  ?  If  there  were  in  the  New  Testament 
any  precept  or  example  as  directly  favorable  to  their  scheme  of 
church  discipline,  as  the  above  precept  and  example  are  to  ours  ; 
they  would  be  quick  to  discover  it,  and  would  at  once  fix  upon  it 

43* 


610  cnuRcn  government. 

as  an  unfailing  support  to  their  principles.  Should  it  be  said  by 
any  one,  that  the  Apostle  in  this  case  plainly  asserted  and  exer- 
cised his  authority  over  the  Corinthian  church,  and  was  thus  an 
example  for  prelates ;  my  reply  would  be  ;  —  let  prelates  then 
take  care  to  copy  the  Apostle's  example,  and  exercise  authority 
just  as  he  did,  not  by  a  separate  final  act  of  their  own,  but 
by  referring  the  business  to  the  churches,  and  directing  the  mem- 
bers to  come  together  to  deliberate  and  act  in  excommunicating 
offenders. 

The  proceedings  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  are  evidently  contrary  to 
the  Episcopal  mode  of  church  government.  There  was  one  Apos- 
tle, that  is  Paul,  at  Antioch,  and  there  were  apostles  at  Jerusalem. 
And  we  may  be  quite  sure  that  these  apostles,  qualified  as  they 
were  for  their  ofiice,  adopted  a  plan  of  proceeding,  which  was 
agreeable  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
pattern  for  ministers  and  churches  in  subsequent  ages.  A  dis- 
pute arose  among  the  disciples  at  Antioch  respecting  circumci- 
sion. They  finally  sent  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  certain  others  to 
the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem  to  attend  to  this  matter. 
"  And  when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  of 
the  church,  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders."  After  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas had  stated  the  case  to  "  all  the  multitude,''^  that  is,  to  the 
apostles  and  elders  and  the  church,  and  after  Peter  and  James 
had  spoken  on  the  question  before  them,  their  deliberations  were 
brought  to  a  happy  close  ;  and  it  pleased  the  apostles  and  elders, 
with  the  whole  church,  to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own  company 
to  communicate  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  church  at 
Antioch,  that  result  being  contained  in  a  letter  with  this  introduc- 
tion :  "  The  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  send  greeting  to  the 
brethren  at  Antioch,  etc." 

In  this  remarkable  case,  we  see  how  the  concerns  of  the  church 
were  managed  and  how  disputes  and  difficulties  were  adjusted  in 
the  primitive  church.  The  apostles,  though  divinely  commissioned 
and  inspired,  did  not  decide  the  question  before  them  by  their  own 
authority,  but  chose  to  act  in  connection  with  the  elders,  or 
presbyters,  and  ^^  the  whole  Church."     And  in  the  final  result, 


PRELACY.  611 

the  elders  and  the  whole  church  had  a  joint  agency  with  the 
apostles. 

Now  what  is  there  in  any  doings  of  the  Episcopal  church,  which 
agrees  with  these  transactions  ?  Where  do  you  find  it  recorded, 
that  in  removing  difficulties  and  settling  great  ecclesiastical  princi- 
ples, the  brethren  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  any  place,  even  in 
this  Republic,  came  together  and  joined  with  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  in  deliberating  freely,  without  being  controlled  by  the 
will  of  any  one,  on  a  question  respecting  the  interests  of  religion, 
and  in  adopting  the  final  decision  ?  Place  a  bishop,  if  you  will, 
on  a  level  with  the  apostles  ;  but  why  place  him  above  them  ? 
Why  should  he,  in  such  transactions,  set  aside  the  brethren  of  the 
church,  and  the  elders  too,  and  assert  his  supremacy  over  them, 
and  act  the  part  of  dictator,  when  the  apostles  themselves,  though 
invested  with  such  high  authority,  did  not  proceed  thus,  but  acted 
in  concert  with  the  elders  and  the  whole  church  ?  Say,  if  you 
will,  that  the  apostles,  though  they  had  a  right  to  decide  and  act 
on  the  gi'ound  of  their  own  plenary  authority,  intended  by  such  a 
proceeding,  to  set  an  example  of  singular  condescension  and 
modesty.  Why  then  do  not  bishops,  who  consider  themselves 
successors  of  the  apostles,  copy  so  charming  an  example  ?  The 
plain  truth  is,  that  there  is  a  radical  fault  in  the  system  of  prelacy. 
That  system  does  not  agree  with  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. When  it  was  introduced,  it  was,  as  we  shall  see,  an  inno- 
vation upon  the  ecclesiastical  order  established  and  acted  upon  by 
the  apostles.  It  was  an  innovation  made  by  uninspired  men,  — 
good  men,  I  admit,  but  as  liable  to  error,  as  good  men  are  now. 
The  system  held  by  Episcopalians,  either  as  to  the  three  orders  of 
ministers,  or  the  mode  of  conducting  the  affairs  of  the  church, 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  pattern  showed  us  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  not  derived  from  the  word  of  God.  In  the 
respects  above  mentioned,  it  is  a  continuation,  for  substance,  of  the 
system  which  existed  so  long  in  the  Papal  church,  and  the  system 
of  the  Papal  church  grew  out  of  the  innovations  and  corruptions 
which  were  gradually  introduced  in  ages  long  after  the  time  of 
the  apostles.     Henry  the  Eighth  did  indeed,  from  personal  con- 


512  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

siderations,  renounce  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  of  Rome.  But 
so  far  as  the  church  of  England  was  concerned,  he  took  the  place 
of  the  Pope,  that  is,  he  became  the  Head  of  the  church.  And 
he  with  his  bishops  retained  for  their  church,  as  any  one  may  see, 
the  essential  features  of  the  previous  hierarchy,  both  as  to  cere- 
monies, and  the  orders  of  the  Priesthood. 

We  have  now  touched  upon  the  prominent  passages  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  relate  directly  to  the  manner  of  treating  offences 
and  removing  disputes  and  dissensions  occurring  in  the  church. 
And  I  know  not  how  to  suppress  the  thoughts,  which  a  re\dew  of 
these  passages  suggests  to  my  mind. 

Suppose,  then,  that  the  advocates  of  the  Episcopal  scheme  of 
Ecclesiastical  government  at  this  day,  could  find  in  the  gospel, 
that  Jesus,  who  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  things  to  come,  directed 
his  followers,  in  case  of  an  offence,  to  deal  once  and  again  with  the 
offender  in  private,  and  if  no  satisfaction  should  be  given  for  the 
offence,  to  tell  it  to  the  presbyter  or  the  bishop,  —  not  to  the 
church,  but  to  the  presbyter  or  the  bishop  ;  would  they  pass  over 
such  a  passage,  as  they  do  Matt.  18:  15 — 17  ?  And  suppose 
they  should  find  in  one  of  Paul's  epistles,  that  he  gave  an  express 
command  to  a  bisJiop,  —  not  to  the  members  of  the  church  assem- 
bled together,  but  to  the  bishop,  "  with  the  power  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  "  to  cut  off  an  offender ;  would  they  pass  over  such  a 
direction,  as  they  do  the  direction  of  Paul  to  the  members  of  the 
church  of  Corinth  respecting  the  treatment  of  the  incestuous  per- 
son ?  And  if  they  could  find  it  related  in  the  history  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  that  an  important  and  difficult  question  respecting 
the  interests  of  the  church  was  determined  and  settled,  not  by 
apostles  and  elders  and  all  the  church  acting  together,  —  but  by 
a  bishop,  or  several  bishops  united,  —  could  Episcopalians  find 
anything  like  this,  would  they  pass  over  it,  as  they  do  the  case 
mentioned  in  Acts  xv.  ? 

It  has  already  been  suggested,  that  any  direction  of  Christ  or 
any  direction  or  act  of  his  apostles  respecting  the  transaction  of 
business  in  the  church,  is  binding  upon  us,  unless  such  direction  or 
act  was  grounded  upon  peculiar  circumstances  then  existing,  and 


PRELACY.  513 

that  circumstances  so  essentially  different  now  exist,  that  we  are 
evidently  at  liberty,  and  even  recjuired,  to  govern  ourselves  by 
other  considerations.  Let  us  inquire  then,  Avhether  there  is  any- 
thing hke  this  in  the  case  now  before  us.  Have  circumstances  so 
changed  since  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
that  we  are  required,  or  left  at  liberty,  to  deviate  from  a  direction 
of  Christ,  or  a  direction  or  example  of  an  Apostle  respecting  the 
treatment  of  offences,  or  the  conduct  of  other  church  affairs  ? 

Now  if  there  is  in  New  England  and  in  other  parts  of  our 
country,  a  substantial  reason  at  the  present  time,  why  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  should  be  excluded  from  any  agency  in  matters 
of  discipline,  and  why  the  government  of  the  church  should  be 
ultimately  in  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  the  reason  must,  I  think, 
consist  in  one  or  more  of  the  following  facts  ;  namely ;  that  the 
interests  of  the  church  are  essentially  different  from  what  they 
originally  were,  and  consequently  require  a  different  management ; 
or,  secondly,  that  the  members  of  the  church  are  less  competent 
than  they  originally  were,  to  have  an  agency  in  the  concerns  of 
the  church ;  or,  thirdly,  that  the  bishop  is  possessed  of  higher 
qualifications,  and  is  of  course,  more  competent  to  the  government 
of  the  church,  than  he  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ;  or,  fourthly,  that  the  state  of  civil  society  is  here  so 
different,  as  to  require  a  change  from  the  popular  forms  of  church 
government  to  prelacy.     Let  us  consider  each  of  these. 

First.  Are  the  essential  interests  of  the  church  different  from 
what  they  were  when  Christianity  was  first  established  in  the 
world  ?  If  any  one  affirms  that  this  is  the  case,  it  will  be  incum- 
bent on  him  to  show  in  what  respect  those  interests  are  different, 
and  why  they  require  different  management.  Till  this  is  done, 
we  cannot  admit  that  the  change  referred  to  in  the  plan  of  church 
government,  is  either  necessary  or  lawful. 

Secondly.  Is  there  reason  to  think,  that  the  members  of  our 
churches  generally  are  less  competent  to  have  a  share  in  ecclesi- 
astical government,  than  the  members  of  the  first  churches  at 
Jerusalem  and  at  Corinth  were  ?  Are  not  Christians  here  as  well 
educated,  as  much  accustomed  to  think  correctly,  and  as  well 


614  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

prepared  for  important  duties,  as  those  were,  who  had  just  emerged 
from  Judaism  or  Paganism  ? 

Thirdly.  Will  any  one  maintain,  that  a  bishop  at  this  day  is 
possessed  of  higher  qualifications,  and  is  more  competent  to  the 
government  of  the  church,  than  a  bishop  was  in  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  at  Corinth,  or  at  Antioch  ?  And  is  he  more  compe- 
tent, than  an  inspired  apostle  ?  You  will  keep  in  mind,  that  there 
were  apostles  there,  but  that  no  apostle  undertook  to  decide  upon 
the  questions  which  came  up  at  Jerusalem,  except  in  concert  with 
the  presbyters  and  the  brethren  of  the  church.  And  as  to  the 
case  of  discipline  at  Corinth,  Paul  did  not  go  there  to  manage  it ; 
nor  did  he  direct  the  bishop  to  manage  it ;  —  (and  doubtless  the 
Corinthian  church  had  a  bishop  ;)  but  he  directed  the  assembled 
church  to  do  it.  The  question  is,  whether  a  bishop  now  is  better 
qualified  to  govern,  than  a  primitive  bishop,  or  an  inspired  apostle  ? 

Finally.  Is  the  state  of  civil  society  in  our  country  such,  as  to 
require  a  change  from  a  popular  form  of  church  government  to 
prelacy  ?  The  question  carries  its  own  answer  with  it.  If  eccle- 
siastical government  is  to  conform  to  civil  government ;  then,  as 
civil  government,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  was  in  the  hands  of 
a  Monarch,  ecclesiastical  government  should  certainly  have  been 
in  the  hands  of  a  prelate.  And  as  we  live  under  a  Republican 
government,  (if  this  circumstance  is  to  have  influence,)  it  would 
seem  to  follow,  that  even  if  prelacy  had  been  the  original  plan,  it 
should  now  be  changed  to  a  popular  shape.  But  what  reason  can 
you  find  in  our  Bepublican  principles  for  a  change  from  the 
original  popular  form  of  church  government  to  an  ecclesiastical 
monarchy,  or  aristocracy  ? 

We  come  therefore  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  has  been  no 
such  change  of  circumstances,  as  to  justify  a  deviation  from  the 
plan  of  church  discipline,  which  was  marked  out  by  the  instruc- 
tions of  Christ,  and  by  the  instructions  and  example  of  the 
apostles ;  and,  of  course,  that  we  are  as  much  bound  to  conform 
to  that  plan,  as  primitive  Christians  were.  My  objection  then 
against  prelacy  remains. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  other  branch  of  my  second  objection, 


PRELACY.  515 

namely,  that  the  New  Testament  contains  evidence,  both  direct 
and  indirect,  against  the  episcopal  scheme,  in  regard  to  different 
orders  in  the  ministry  and  the  authority  of  bishops. 

It  seems  to  me,  that  everything  in  the  New  Testament  relative 
to  the  Christian  ministry  is  different  from  what  it  would  have 
been,  if  Christ  and  his  apostles  had  intended  to  establish  different 
orders,  and  to  give  one  order  authority  over  the  others.  The 
seventy  disciples  that  Jesus  sent  forth  were  all  of  one  order.  So 
also  were  the  twelve  apostles.  And  Jesus  took  special  pains  to 
guard  them  against  supposing,  that  one  of  them  was  to  be  supe- 
rior in  rank  to  the  others.  "  Be  not  called  masters,"  he  said ; 
"  for  one  is  your  master,  even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  arc  brethren." 
And  Avhen  some  of  them  made  the  request,  that  they  might 
be  distinguished  above  their  brethren ;  he  rebuked  them  and 
said ;  "  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask."  He  then  proceeded  to 
inform  them,  that  it  should  not  be  among  them  as  it  was 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  where  some  are  appointed  to 
exercise  lordship  over  others ;  that  they  should  not  aim  at  power, 
but  should  look  upon  each  other  as  brethren  and  equals.  If  the 
Saviour  and  Head  of  the  church  had  intended  to  establish 
prelacy,  that  would  have  been  a  very  favorable  opportunity  for 
him  to  allude  to  the  subject,  and  to  signify,  that  although  no 
distinction  of  rank  should  be  made  among  the  twelve  apostles,  who 
were  to  be  his  first  ministers,  it  would  be  otherwise  in  subsequent 
times,  and  that  the  welfare  of  the  church  would  ultimately  require, 
that  there  should  be  three  orders  of  ministers,  the  second  being 
superior  to  the  third,  and  the  first  having  authority  over  both. 
Whereas  all  that  he  said  on  this  occasion,  was  decidedly  against 
any  such  distinction. 

Proceed  now  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  consider  the 
passages,  which  most  directly  relate  to  the  subject  before  us.  The 
first  is  Acts  13:  1 — 3.  In  the  church  at  Antioch,  which  doubt- 
less comprised  several  congregations,  there  were  certain  prophets 
-  and  teachers,  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  and  Lucius,  and  Manaen, 
and  Saul.  "  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the 
Holy  Ghost  said,  separate  me   Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 


516  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

■^hereunto  I  have  called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and 
prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away." 
The  proceeding  does  not  correspond  at  all  with  the  Episcopal 
scheme.  There  was  no  one  among  them,  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
"who  was  superior  in  office  to  the  others,  and  to  whom  the  business 
was  committed  of  separating  Barnabas  and  Saul  by  prayer  and 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  then  sending  them  forth  to  the  work 
of  preaching  the  gospel  among  the  heathen.  No  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles  was  there.  Savil  was  indeed  called  to  be  an  Apostle  in 
the  highest  sense.  But  it  was  he  and  Barnabas,  that  were  to  be 
set  apart  for  the  special  work  whereunto  they  were  called.  But 
was  there  any  prelate  there  ?  Or  did  the  Holy  Ghost  direct 
them  to  send  for  an  Apostle,  or  for  one  whom  the  apostles  had 
ordained  as  a  prelate,  to  come  and  set  apart  Barnabas  and  Saul  ? 
Now  I  do  not  say  that  this  was  an  ordination  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  commonly  use  the  word.  But  I  ask,  whether  any 
transaction  like  this  takes  place,  or  can  take  place,  among  modem 
Episcopalians ;  whether  it  would  be  consistent  with  their  princi- 
ples, that  two  of  their  young  men  should  be  solemnly  set  apart 
for  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry  among  the  heathen,  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  those  who  are  not  bishops  ?  And  I 
ask,  whether  the  Episcopal  scheme  and  the  Episcopal  practice  are 
not,  in  this  matter,  at  variance  with  the  proceedings  of  the  first 
Christian  churches  ? 

It  cannot  be  alleged,  that  these  proceedings  took  place  before 
there  had  been  time  to  organize  the  churches,  and  to  develop  the 
real  and  ultimate  design  of  Christ  in  regard  to  the  ministerial 
office.  For  the  apostles  had  been  preaching  about  twelve  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  had  established^  many  churches,  and 
had  unquestionably  given  the  necessary  instruction  relative  to 
the  permanent  institutions  of  Christianity.  The  affairs  of  the 
church  had,  for  many  years,  been  receiving  direction  and  form 
under  the  special  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  from  the 
proceedings  at  Antioch  in  setting  apart  men  to  the  gospel  ministry 
among  the  heathen,  wc  learn  what  that  form  was. 

The  next  passage  to  which  I  refer,  is  Acts  xx.     Paul  gathered 


PRELACY.  517 

the  elders  or  presbyters  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  said  to 
them :  "  Take  heed  to  the  flock  over  which  the  IIolj  Ghost  hath 
made  you  iniaxonovs,  bishops."  The  p-eshyters  -were  bishops. 
The  two  words  were  used  interchangeably.  They  were  applied 
to  the  same  men,  and  denoted  the  same  oflBce.  Now  Paul  had 
been  at  Ephesus  no  less  than  three  years,  and  had  done  what  he 
deemed  necessary  for  the  establishment  of  gospel  order.  The 
church  at  Ephesus  was  a  large  church,  consisting  doubtless  of 
several  congregations,  and  having  several  bishops,  or  presbyters  ; 
all,  however,  forming  one  church.  Now,  why  had  not  Paul, 
during  his  long  stay  there,  and  in  the  first  organization  of  the 
church,  in  which  it  was  so  important  that  everything  should  be 
done  right, —  why  had  he  not  appointed  a  prelate  for  Ephesus, 
vrho  should  have  authority  over  the  other  bishops,  or  presbyters, 
and  a  general  supervision  over  the  whole  church  ?  This  certainly 
would  have  been  done  by  any  one  who  entertained  the  views  of 
our  prelates.  Why  had  not  Paul  done  it  ?  Or  if  he  had  done 
it,  why  does  it  not  appear  ?  Why  is  it  not  said  he  sent  and  called 
the  bishop  and  the  2J^'^sbi/ters  ?  And  why  is  it  not  said  that  he 
addressed  himself  to  them  distinctly,  as  any  bishop  would  now 
do,  charging  the  prelate  to  maintain  a  faithful  care  and  gov- 
ernment over  the  other  orders  of  ministers,  and  charging  the 
presbyters  to  be  faithful  in  their  respective  congregations,  and  to-, 
show  due  honor  and  submission  to  their  bishop  ?  If  Paul  agreed 
with  Episcopahans  in  principle,  why  did  he  not  agree  with  them 
in  practice?  And  if  Episcopalians  differ  from  the  Apostle  in 
practice,  is  it  not  probable  they  differ  from  him  in  principle  too  ? 

I  argue  against  the  doctrine  of  prelacy  from  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Titus,  Chap.  1 :  5,  7.  He  directed  Titus  to  ordain  presbyters  in 
every  city,  and  specified  the  quahfications  they  should  possess ; 
and  then  suggests  to  Titus  the  reason  for  such  care  as  to  the 
character  of  a  presbyter.  "  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
etc."  The  whole  passage  makes  it  certain  that  the  Apostle 
meant  the  same  officer  by  presbyter  and  by  bishop. 

The  address  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  implies  some- 
thing unfavorable  to  prelacy.      "  To   all  the  saints  at  Philippi, 

VOL.  III.  44 


518  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

•with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  The  bishops  were  just  such 
church  officers,  as  those  at  Ephesus,  who  were  first  called  pres- 
byters, and  then  bishops.  You  observe,  thej  were  bishops,  —  not 
a  bishop,  but  bishops,  —  and  bishops  of  the  same  church  or  col- 
lection of  churches,  or,  if  you  please,  bishops  of  the  same  diocese. 
It  would  suit  the  views  of  Episcopalians  far  better,  had  the 
Apostle  directed  his  Epistle  thus :  "  To  all  the  saints  at  Philippi, 
with  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons^ 

As  to  deacons ;  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  find  what  information 
the  New  Testament  gives.  They  were  servants,  or  ministers,  as 
the  word  signifies.  It  is  applied  to  Phebe,  Rom.  16 :  1,  who 
in  a  more  private  Avay  ministered  to  the  saints.  It  is  often 
applied  to  the  apostles.  See  1  Cor.  3:  5.  2  Cor.  3:  6.  It  is 
appUed  to  Timothy,  1  Thess.  3:  2;  to  Tychicus,  Eph.  6:  21, 
and  to  Epaphras,  Coloss.  1 :  7.  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  apostles 
and  other  ministers  were  familiarly  called  deacons,  i.  e.  servants. 
This  is  the  general  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
1  Tim,  iii,  bishops  and  deacons  are  mentioned  and  described 
distinctly,  implying  that  they  were  employed,  in  different  depart- 
ments of  labor.  But  what  evidence  is  there,  that  the  deacons, 
were  subject  to  the  bishops  ?  What  evidence  is  there  that  the 
bishops  had  authority  over  them.  This  cannot  be  inferred  from 
the  name.  They  were  indeed  called  deacons,  or  servants ;  and 
so  were  Timothy  and  Tychicus,  and  so  were  the  apostles.  And 
while  the  deacons  described  by  Paul,  1  Tim.  iii,  were  truly 
servants,  they  were  servants  of  Christ,  but  are  never  said  to  be 
servants  of  a  bishop. 

1  Tim.  4 :  14.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery.^''  Presbytery  denotes  an  assembly  of  presbyters. 
These  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  and  thus  inducted  him  into 
his  office.  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  naturally  adopt 
this  languasre  in  givin";  an  account  of  their  ordinations.  The 
passage  is  plainly  in  favor  of  ordination  by  a  council  of  presbyters. 
But  it  is  against  the  notion  of  ordination  by  a  prelate.  And  Epis- 
copalians do  not  naturally  describe  their  ordinations  in  this  way. 


PRELACY.  019 

They  refer  you  at  once  to  2  Tim.  1:  6,  where  the  Apostle  speaks 
of  the  gift  which  was  in  Timothy,  by  the  laying  on  of  Ids  hands. 
This  passage  unquestionably  implies,  that  Paul  joined  with  the 
presbyters  in  ordaining  Timothy  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  But 
there  is  no  evidence  from  the  two  passages  taken  together,  or 
from  anything  else,  that  the  presbyters  had  not  as  good  a  light  to 
ordain  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  or  as  real  a  concern  in  confer- 
ring the  gift  spoken  of,  as  the  Apostle  had.  The  gift  came 
indeed  from  above,  and  was  ascribed  to  human  agency  in  only  a 
secondary  sense.  But  it  was  ascribed  to  the  presbytery,  as  much 
as  to  Paul.  And  it  was  thus  ascribed  to  the  presbytery  by  Paul 
himself. 

1  Pet.  5:  1 — 3.  Peter  evidently  agrees  with  Paul  in  regard 
to  the  subject  under  consideration.  He  here  addresses  elders,  or 
presbyters,  calling  himself  an  elder,  and  then  exhorts  them  to  do 
the  ivork  of  bishops,  imaxonovvzsi; ;  clearly  identifying  the  office  of 
bishop  and  elder.  A  bishop,  according  to  the  New  Testament 
use,  was  a  minister  and  overseer  of  a  church,  not  an  overseer  of 
presbyters.  Presbyters  were  bishops,  and  bishops  were  presby- 
ters. The  language  of  the  apostles  makes  it  evident,  that  they 
considered  all  ministers  on  a  footing  of  equality.  They  mention  no 
such  officer  as  a  prelate,  that  is,  a  bishop  which  had  authority  over 
a  number  of  churches,  and  over  other  bishops. 

This  is  acknowledged  by  many  Episcopalians.  Bishop  Burnet 
says :  "  I  acknowledge  the  office  of  bishop  and  presbyter  to  be 
one  and  the  same  office."  Dr.  Reynolds,  former  Professor  of 
Divinity  in  Oxford,  says,  that  all  who  labored  for  hundreds  of 
years  before  him  taught,  that  all  pastors,  whether  entitled  bishops 
or  presbyters,  have  equal  power  and  authority  6y  God's  ivord. 
And  he  declares  this  to  be  the  common  judgment  of  the  Reformed 
churches  in  Switzerland,  Savoy,  France,  Germany,  Hungary, 
Poland,  the  Netherlands,  Scotland,  and  England.  And  in  a 
work  called  "  The  Institution  of  the  Christian  man,"  expressly 
approved  by  Cranmer,  Jewell,  Willet,  and  StiUingfleet,  together 
with  the  King  and  Parliament,  and  the  main  body  of  the  English 
clergy,  is  this  declaration :  "  In  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 


620  CHURCH    GOVEKNMENT. 

mention  of  any  other  degrees,  but  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and  of 
presbyters  or  bishops.''^  Burnet  says :  "  The  King  gave  bishops 
their  power  to  ordain  ministers,  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion, and  to  perform  all  other  parts  of  the  Episcopal  function." 
Dr.  Holland,  King's  Professor  at  Oxford,  says :  "  To  affirm  the 
office  of  bishop  to  be  different  from  that  of  presbyter,  and  superior 
to  it,  is  most  false,  —  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the  fathers,  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  of  England,  yea,  to  the  very  schoolmen 
themselves."  The  Editors  of  the  Christian  Observer,  1804,  say : 
"  Episcopalians  found  not  the  merits  of  their  cause  upon  any 
■express  injunction  or  deUneation  of  ecclesiastical  government  in 
the  Scriptures;  for  there  is  none."  I  shall  add  a  recent  tes- 
timony. Bishop  Onderdonk  says,  that  "  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  name,  bishop,  is  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  presbyters  ;  and 
that  all  which  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  bishops, 
—  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  that  middle  grade."  "  It 
was,"  he  says,  "  after  the  apostolic  age,  that  the  name  bishop  was 
taken  from  the  second  order,  and  appropriated  to  the  first." 


LECTURE     CXXIII. 


CHUECH   GOVERNMENT.      PRELACY. 

We  have  seen  that  the  New  Testament,  instead  of  supporting 
the  Episcopal  scheme,  furnishes  e\'idence  against  it.  This  is 
acknowledged  bj  many  Episcopahans. 

Here  our  inquiries  might  end.  For-the  Holy  Scriptures  must 
be  our  guide  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  on  any  other.  If  the 
authorized  founders  and  guides  of  the  church  saw  proper  to  estab- 
lish general  principles  of  church  government,  those  principles 
should  govern  us.  Now,  if  I  mistake  not,  it  has  been  made  evi- 
dent, that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  originally  officers  of  the 
same  order ;  and  that  the  members  of  the  church  should  act  in 
matters  of  discipUne. 

The  great  reason  which  is  urged  by  Episcopahans  to  justify 
them  in  departing  from  the  Scripture  standard  and  in  establishing 
prelacy,  is,  that  prelacy  was  introduced  at  an  early  period  in  the 
Christian  church. 

I  encounter  this  argument  at  once  with  several  inquiries. 

First.  Were  the  early  fathers  guided  by  divine  inspiration, 
and  thus  qualified  and  authorized,  as  infallible  guides,  to  make 
alterations  in  the  order  which  the  apostles  had  established  ?  If 
they  were,  then  we  ought  to  submit  to  their  decision  as  readily,  as 
to  the  decision  of  the  apostles.     But  this  no  one  maintains. 

Secondly.  Were  the  early  Christian  fathers  instructed  hy  the- 
apostles  to  make  the  alteration  uitended,  and  to  introduce  pre- 
lacy ?     If  there  is  any  evidence  of  this,  it  must  be  found  either  in 

44* 


622  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

the  instructions  of  the  apostles  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in 
the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers,  that  they  received  oral  instruc- 
tions from  the  apostles  in  favor  of  such  a  change,  though  the 
instructions  were  not  recorded. 

Let  us  look  at  the  first  of  these  suppositions.  In  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  in  the  epistles,  we  have  particular  instructions  in 
regard  both  to  the  ministry  and  the  church.  But  does  it  appear 
that  they  said,  or  in  any  way  intimated,  that  although,  for  the 
time  being,  they  estabhshed  only  one  order  of  ministers,  called 
presbyters  or  bishops,  they  would  have  three  orders  established  in 
following  ages  ?  They  directed  that  presbyters  should  be  ordained 
in  every  city.  But  did  they  signify  that,  after  a  while,  a  prelate 
should  be  ordained  over  presbyters  ?  The  subject  being  of 
great  importance,  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that  something,  like 
what  I  have  suggested,  would  have  been  found  in  some  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  if  the  mind  of  the  apostles  had  been  in  favor  of 
the  change  alluded  to.     But  where  do  you  find  it  ? 

Look  then  at  the  other  supposition.  Do  the  early  fathers  tes- 
tify, that  the  apostles  gave  oral  instructions,  which  are  not 
recorded,  that  there  should  be  three  orders  in  the  ministry  ?  Do 
they  inform  us,  that  there  was  an  unwritten  tradition  handed 
down  from  the  apostles  in  favor  of  prelacy  ?  In  the  writings  of 
the  Christian  fathers  there  is,  in  my  judgment,  no  evidence  of 
this,  but  much  to  the  contrary.  I  cannot  go  into  an  examination 
of  this  subject,  but  others  have  done  it.  And  I  recommend  to 
you  a  careful  perusal  of  the  best  works  which  have  been  written 
on  both  sides  of  the  question. 

But  early  practice  is  appealed  to.  Prelacy,  it  is  said,  gene- 
rally prevailed  very  early ;  and  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that 
this  would  have  been  the  case,  without  some  warrant  from  the 
apostles. 

It  is  admitted  that  prelacy  did  at  length  obtain  a  general 
prevalence  in  the  church.  But  it  is  important  to  inquire, 
when  it  thus  prevailed.  There  is  clear  evidence,  that  during  the 
age  of  the  apostles,  and  for  more  than  fifty  years,  after,  the 
churches  were  taught  and  governed  by  presbyters ;  that  those 


PRELACY.  523 

who  were  called  bishops,  were  the  same  as  presbyters,  and  were 
pastors  and  overseers  of  particular  churches,  and  that  there  was 
no  officer  of  superior  rank,  having  authority  over  inferior  orders  of 
ministers  ;  and  also  that  the  members  of  the  church  acted  in  mat- 
ters of  discipline,  according  to  the  direction  of  Christ  in  Matt. 
xviii.  But  instead  of  undertaking  to  present  this  evidence  before 
you  in  detail,  I  can  do  little  more  than  state  the  positions  which  I 
think  tenable,  and  refer  you  to  several  works  of  a  high  character, 
in  which  the  subject  is  handled  particularly  and  fully. 

Pedobaptists  have  sometimes  been  charged  with  an  inconsis- 
tency, because  they  derive  an  argument  in  support  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism from  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  yet  deny  the  force  of  the 
same  argument  when  urged  in  support  of  prelacy. 

A  statement  of  the  case,  just  as  it  is,  Avill  show,  that  the  charge 
has  no  foundation. 

The  chief  historical  evidence  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  does 
not,  in  my  view,  arise  from  the  fact,  that  the  practice  did  at 
length  generally  prevail  in  the  early  ages ;  but  from  the  testimony 
of  the  fathers,  that  it  ivas  received  from  the  apostles.  In  their 
practice,  early  Christians  did,  in  many  things,  deviate  from  the 
principles  established  by  the  apostles.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that 
the  mere  prevalence  of  any  practice  in  the  fourth,  third,  or  second 
century,  cannot  be  considered  as  joroving  its  divine  origin.  But 
it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  Christian  fathers  were  upright 
men,  and  that  their  testimony,  as  to  matters  of  fact  within  their 
knowledge,  is  worthy  to  be  relied  upon.  Now  it  was  doubtless 
known  among  them,  what  the  apostolic  institutions  were  ;  just  as 
it  is  known  among  us,  what  were  the  original  institutions  of  our 
Puritan  forefathers  in  New  England.  Those  who  hved  in  the 
second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries  had  such  means  of  information, 
that  they  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  fallen  into  any  mistake. 
They  were  honest  men,  and  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  given  a 
false  testimony.  And  their  testimony  is,  not  only  that  Infant 
Baptism  was  universally  practised  among  Christians,  but  that  it 
was  delivered  to  the  churches  hy  the  apostles.  It  is  chiefly  from 
this  testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the  practice,  and  not  from  the 


SSA  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

mere  fact  of  its  prevalence,  that  I  would  argue  in  support  of 
Infant  Baptism.  Now  to  make  the  cases  parallel,  jou  must  have 
the  testimony  of  Christian  fathers  not  only  that  prelacy  generally 
prevailed  at  such  a  time,  but  that  it  was  handed  down,  as  a  divine 
ordinance,  from  the  apostles.  You  must  have  their  testimony, 
that  prelacy  had  uniformly  existed  in  the  Christian  church,  and 
was  received  from  the  inspired  apostles  as  a  ptermanent  institution. 
If  such  a  testimony  could  be  produced,  who  would  not  acknowledge 
its  weight  ? 

But  we  have  testimony  that  prelacy  Avas  not  received  from  the 
apostles.  And  to  place  the  historical  argument  for  Infant  Bap- 
tism on  the  same  footing  with  this,  it  must  be  shown  that,  while 
Infant  Baptism  was  universally  practised  in  the  days  of  Origen, 
Augustine,  Pelagius,  Tertulliau,  etc.,  the  fathers,  at  least  some  of 
them,  declared,  that  it  was  not  the  practice  in  the'  Christian 
church  originally,  but  was,  for  special  reasons,  introduced  after- 
wards. If  any  evidence  like  this  could  be  adduced,  we  should  be 
obliged  to  abandon  the  historical  argument  for  Infant  Baptism,  and 
to  acknowledge  that,  so  far  as  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  goes, 
tihe  Baptists  are  right. 

In  opposition  to  prelacy,  we  have  just  such  testimony  from  the 
fathers,  as  I  have  hinted  at.  Chrysostom  says :  "  The  presbyters 
were  formerly  called  bishops  ;  and  the  bishops,  presbyters." 
Theodoret  says :  "  Those  who  were  called  bishops  evidently  held 
the  rank  of  presbyters."  But  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning  of  the  jBfth  century,  gives  the 
most  particular  testimony.  "  In  the  judgment  of  Erasmus, 
Jerome  was  without  controversy  by  far  the  most  learned  and 
most  eloquent  of  all  the  Christians,  and  the  prince  of  Christian 
divines  ;  "  and  he  was  unquestionably  familiar  with  the  history  of 
the  Christian  church  from  the  beginning.  His  testimony  is  found 
in  his  Annotations  on  Paul's  Epistle  to  Titus,  where  he  gives  an 
account  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  office  of  a  bishop.  He 
«ays :  "  A  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop.  And  until  there 
arose  dinsions  in  religion,  churches  were  governed  by  a  common 
eouncil  of  presbyters.    But  afterwards,  it  was  everywhere  decreed, 


PRELACY.  525 

that  one  person,  elected  from  the  presbyters,  should  be  placed 
over  the  others."  Referring  to  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Pliiiippians, 
■which  was  addressed  to  the  saints  "  with  the  bishops  and  dea- 
cons," he  observes  ;  "  Philippi  is  a  single  city  of  Macedonia  ;  and 
certainl}^  there  could  not  have  been  several  like  those  who  are  now 
called  bishops,  at  one  time  in  the  same  city.  But  as,  at  that  time, 
they  called  the  same  bishops,  whom  they  styled  presbyters  also, 
the  apostles  spoke  indifferently  of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.'* 
Jerome  alludes  to  the  fact,  that  Paul,  having  sent  for  the  presby- 
ters of  the  single  city  of  Ephesus,  afterwards  speaks  of  them  as 
bishops  ;  and  he  refers  also  to  what  Peter  says :  "  The  presbyters 
who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter.  —  Feed 
the  flock  of  God  —  taking  the  oversight,  inianonovvrtg,  exercising 
the  office  of  a  bishop,  etc."  "  These  things,"  Jerome  says,  "  we 
have  brought  forward  to  show  that,  tvith  the  ancients,  presbyters 
were  the  same  as  bishops.  But  in  order  that  the  roots  of  dissen- 
sion might  be  plucked  up,  a  usage  gradually  took  place,  that  the 
whole  care  should  devolve  upon  one.  Therefore,  as  the  presbyters 
know,  that  it  is  bg  the  custom  of  the  church  that  they  are  subject 
to  him  who  is  placed  over  them ;  so  let  bishops  know,  that  they 
are  above  presbyters  rather  bg  custom  than  by  the  truth  of  our 
Lord's  appointment." 

Many  of  the  advocates  of  prelacy  in  the  English  church,  as 
well  as  elsewhere,  admit  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
the  primitive  church,  and  that  the  distinction,  which  prevailed  in 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  was  unknown  for  a  long  time  after 
the  Christian  church  was  founded  by  the  apostles. 

I  have  said,  that  the  mere  practice  of  the  ancient  church  caimot 
in  any  case  be  adduced,  as  conclusive  evidence  of  a  divine  institu- 
tion. But  in  regard  even  to  ancient  practice,  there  is  an  obvious 
difference  between  Infant  Baptism  and  prelacy.  In  the  first 
place ;  there  is  evidence  that  Infant  Baptism  was  practised  uni- 
versally in  the  early  churches  ;  Avhile  there  is  no  such  evidence, 
but  the  contrary,  in  regard  to  prelacy.  Secondly  ;  there  is  clear 
evidence,  that  prelacy  was  gradually  introduced  long  after  the 
age  of  the  apostles,  with  a  view  to  remedy  existing  evils.     But 


626  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

there  is  no  evidence  that  Infant  Baptism  was  thus  gradually  in- 
troduced, or  introduced  at  all,  after  the  time  of  the  apostles.  So 
that  the  argument,  which  is  grounded  upon  ancient  practice 
merely,  though  by  no  means  conclusive,  is  yet  of  more  weight  in 
favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  than  of  prelacy. 

Suppose  now  that  the  facts  in  the  case  were  different  from  what 
they  are.  Suppose  that  respectable  writers  among  the  Christian 
fathers  had  given  a  testimony  to  the  apostolic  origin  of  prelacy, 
like  that  which  they  have  given  against  it.  Suppose  Chrysostom, 
instead  of  saying,  that  presbyters  were  formerly  called  bishops, 
and  bishops  presbyters,  had  said,  that  bishops  from  the  begin- 
ning were  superior  to  presbyters.  And  suppose,  that  Theodoret, 
instead  of  saying  ;  "  those  who  were  called  bishops,  evidently  held 
the  rank  of  presbyters,"  had  said,  that  bishops  evidently  held 
a  rank  above  presbyters.  And  suppose  that  such  a  man  as 
Jerome,  instead  of  saying  what  I  have  quoted  from  his  Annota- 
tions, had  said,  that  a  presbyter  was  not  the  same  as  a  bishop, 
and  that,  from  the  beginning,  the  churches  were  governed,  not  by 
presbyters,  but  by  a  bishop.  And  suppose  he  had  said,  not  that 
a  usage,  after  a  while,  gradually  took  place,  but  that  it  was  a 
usage /rom  the  first  that  the  whole  care  of  the  churches  devolved 
upon  one,  and  that  it  was  always  the  case,  that  one  was  chosen 
from  among  the  presbyters  to  be  placed  over  the  others.  And, 
instead  of  inculcating  humility  upon  bishops  from  the  considera- 
tion, that  they  are  above  presbyters  rather  by  custom,  then  by 
the  truth  of  the  Lord's  appointment,  suppose  he  had  inculcated 
submission  upon  presbyters,  from  the  consideration  that  bishops 
■were  placed  over  them  not  merely  by  common  custom,  but  by 
the  Lord's  appointment ;  —  suppose  that  these  and  other  ancient 
fathers  had  thus  given  the  very  same  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
apostolic  origin  of  prelacy,  as  they  actually  gave  against  it ;  would 
not  the  advocates  of  prelacy  feel,  that  they  were  in  possession  of 
a  new  and  powerful  argument,  and  that  all  the  world  must  acknow- 
ledge their  cause  to  be  founded  upon  a  rock  ? 

But  I  meet  the  argument  from  early  practice  in  another  way. 
Suppose  then,  that  prelacy  was  in  fact  introduced  soon  after  the 


PRELACY.  527 

age  of  the  apostles,  and  was  extended  rapidly  through  the  Chris- 
tian world.  Mj  question  is,  on  what  grounds  the  practice  of 
uninspired  men  can  bind  us  ?  The  apostles  mourned  over  the 
ignorance,  the  superstition,  the  party  spirit  and  strife,  that  ap- 
peared in  the  churches  which  they  had  planted,  and  even  among 
the  religious  teachers  Avho  lived  in  their  day ;  and  they  bore  a 
solemn  testimony  against  evils  so  dishonorable  to  the  character  of 
Christians.  And  can  you  think  it  is  the  will  of  God,  that  we 
should  regard  those  as  safe  guides,  who  were  so  prone  to  corrupt 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  to  run  into  all  soi'ts  of  disorder, 
as  many  of  the  churches  of  Asia  did  even  in  the  apostolic  age  ? 
There  were  indeed  faithful  ministers  and  Christians.  And  such 
are  found  at  the  present  day.  But  does  the  piety  and  fidelity 
of  ministers  and  Christians  render  them  infalhble,  and  authorize 
them  to  unsettle  what  the  apostles  settled  ?  Does  it  invest  them 
with  power  to  control  our  opinions  or  our  practice  ?  Are  we  to 
follow  them,  any  further  than  they  followed  Christ  and  the  apostles  ? 
And  when  we  find  uninspired  men  differ  among  themselves,  as  they 
always  have  done,  especially  in  regard  to  church  government ;  to 
which  of  them  shall  we  submit  ?  vSome  say,  to  the  most  ancient  —  to 
those  loho  lived  nearest  to  the  apostles.  But  what  special  title  had 
they  to  dictate  to  those  who  should  come  after  them  ?  Were  there 
not  errors  and  corruptions  among  them  ?  And  why  is  it  not  just 
as  proper  and  necessary  for  us  to  examine  their  opinions  and  prac- 
tices, and  to  receive  or  reject  them  according  as  they  agree  or 
disagree  with  the  word  of  God,  as  it  is  that  we  should  treat  the 
opinions  and  practices  of  modern  divines  in  this  manner  ?  Who 
will  assert,  that  uninspired  men  in  the  primitive  church,  —  men 
just  recovered  from  the  errors  of  Judaism  and  paganism,  subject 
to  so  much  ignorance  and  prejudice,  and  exposed  to  so  many 
influences  adverse  to  the  purity  of  our  religion,  —  who  will  assert 
that  such  men  are  entitled  to  our  veneration  and  confidence, 
above  the  best  men  that  have  lived  since  the  Reformation  ?  If 
we  were  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  following  uninspired  teachers 
of  religion  ;  who  of  us  would  not  prefer  Calvin,  Leighton  and 
Scott,  Howe,  Edwards  and  Dwight,  before  TertuUian,  Cyril  and 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  Ambrose  and  Augustine  ? 


528  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

The  remarkable  saying  of  Tertullian  has  been  often  repeated  ; 
"  Whatever  is  first  is  true  ;  whatever  is  later  is  false.^^  Look  at 
this  a  moment.  The  traditions  of  the  Jews,  which  made  void  the 
law  of  God  were  ^^  first ;  "  and  Christ's  sermon  on  the  mount  was 
^^  later."  It  may  be  said,  the  law  of  God  was  still  ^^  first,"  and 
those  traditions  "  later."  This  I  admit.  And  I  say  too,  that  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  were  ^^  first,"  and  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers  "  later."  The  rule  of  Tertullian  is  sometimes  right, 
and  sometimes  wrong.  It  is  not  a  fact,  that  men  were,  in  all 
cases,  nearer  to  the  truth,  in  proportion  as  they  lived  nearer  to 
the  time  of  the  apostles.  Who  will  say,  that  the  Catholic  writers, 
who  supported  all  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome  previ- 
ously to  the  Reformation,  were  nearer  to  the  truth,  than  the  great 
lights  of  the  Reformed  churches  ? 

Some  think,  that  those  opinions  and  practices,  in  which  the 
fathers  all  agreed,  must  correspond  with  the  instructions  of 
the  apostles.  In  regard  to  this,  I  remark,  first,  that  the  fathers 
VFfere  all  agreed  on  hardly  any  subject,  certainly  not  on  the  subject 
now  under  consideration.  But,  secondly,  if  they  had  all  been 
agreed,  it  would  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose.  For  if  a  few 
good  men  may  agree  in  adopting  a  particular  error,  why  may  not 
many  ?  We  well  know  that  the  fathers  generally  fell  into  palpa- 
ble mistakes  on  moral  and  religious  subjects.  And  can  we  set 
limits  to  the  number  of  uninspired  men,  who,  under  the  influence 
of  their  own  imperfections,  and  of  unpropitious  outward  circum- 
stances, may  fall  into  false  opinions  or  wrong  practices  ?  We  can 
never  safely  make  it  our  rule  to  follow  the  multitude.  If  you 
could  argue  in  favor  of  prelacy,  that  it  was  universally  adopted 
in  the  fourth,  the  third,  and  even  the  second  century,  I  could  by 
no  means  admit  the  validity  of  the  argument,  but  should  still 
maintain,  that  no  agreement  of  ludnspired  men,  unsupported  by 
the  Scriptures,  can  be  obligatory  on  us.  In  direct  opposition 
to  the  dogma  of  the  Romish  church,  I  hold  that  the  Scriptures 
themselves  arc,  to  all  Christians,  the  sufficient  and  only  authorita- 
tive rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

But  here  you  may  ask,  whether  there  was  not  such  a  change 


PRELACY.  529 

of  circumstances^  as  justified  the  fathers  iii  departing  from  the 
instructions  and  the  example  of  the  apostles.  We  have  already 
considered  this  general  question  in  relation  to  church  discipline. 
We  are  now  to  consider  it  in  relation  to  different  orders  in  the 
ministry^  and  the  authority  of  a  prelate. 

The  parity  of  ministers  which  was  established  by  the  apostles, 
must  have  been  just  and  proper  at  the  time  ;  because  the  apostles 
were  infallible.  And  it  must  be  just  and  proper  at  all  times, 
unless  such  circumstances  occur,  as  plainly  show  it  to  be  the  will 
of  God,  that  prelacy  should  be  introduced.  Is  it  then  a  fact, 
that  such  circumstances  have  occurred  ?  And  particularly,  did 
they  occur  during  the  period  when  prelacy  was  first  introduced, 
that  is,  during  one  or  two  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age  ? 
And  was  there  at  that  time  any  suflScient  reason  for  the  change  ? 

The  chief  reason  for  establishing  prelacy  according  to  Jerome, 
and  other  Christian  fathers,  was,  that  divisions  and  disorders 
•prevailed,  and  it  was  thought  these  evils  might  be  avoided  by 
investing  some  ministers  with  higher  power,  and  making  them 
overseers  or  bishops,  not  only  over  the  churches,  but  over  other 
ministers.     Was  this  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  change  ? 

Here  consider,  that  great  divisions  and  irregularities  early 
appeared  in  the  churches  which  the  apostles  planted,  and  over 
which  they  extended  their  watchful  care.  This  was  specially 
the  case  in  the  Corinthian  church.  With  what  sorrow  did  Paul 
notice  the  disorders  which  had  crept  into  that  church,  or  that 
cluster  of  churches ;  and  with  what  earnestness  did  he  labor  to 
put  an  end  to  them !  And  he  was  so  under  the  guidance  of 
that  wisdom  which  is  from  above,  that  he  must  have  known  what 
means  would  be  best  adapted  to  remove  those  hurtful  disorders. 
Why  did  he  not  hit  upon  the  expedient,  which  Episcopalians 
would  instantly  resort  to  in  any  such  case  ?  Why  did  he  not  tell 
the  Corinthians,  that  common  ministers  and  members  of  the 
church  had  too  much  concern  in  administering  their  affairs,  and 
that,  if  they  would  keep  things  in  order,  they  must  have  a  bishop, 
■who  should  have  power  to  rule  over  the  churches,  and  over  other 
Uttinisters  ?     There  was,  at  that  time,  the  very  reason  for  intro- 

VOL.  III.  45 


530  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

ducing  prelacy,  -which  has  been  considered  most  weighty.  It 
.was  a  very  favorable  opportunity  to  make  the  change.  The 
Apostle  was  alive,  and  had  power  to  do  the  very  thing  which  was 
called  for.  The  reason  for  a  more  energetic  government  existed 
in  all  its  strength  ;  and  the  Apostle  knew  it.  They  were  carnal. 
.  There  was  envying  and  strife,  and  division  among  them ;  they 
were  formed  into  parties,  each  party  setting  up  its  own  favorite 
.  teacher ;  there  were  immoralities  in  the  church  ;  and  they  were 
guilty  of  shocking  irregularities  even  while  commemorating  the 
death  of  Christ.  The  Apostle  knew  all  these  disorders,  and  he 
knew  what  was  the  best  way  to  remedy  them,  and  to  promote  the 
welfare  of  the  church.  And  it  was  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world 
•for  the  great  Apostle  to  say,  if  he  had  only  thought  so; — you 
have  tried  the  'principle  of  equality  among  ministers,  and  popular 
proceedings  in  the  church,  long  enough.  You  cannot  succeed,  ivhile 
there  are  so  many  concerned  in  the  government.  You  must  have 
a  bishop.  But  the  Apostle  did  not  think  so.  Amid  all  his 
advices  to  the  Corinthians,  he  did  not  advise  this.  He  had  seen 
what  evils  prevailed,  and  he  clearly  foresaw  what  divisions  and 
strifes  would  disturb  the  churches  after  his  decease.  But  so  it 
■was,  that  he  never  gave  them  the   least  hint  in  favor  of  prelacy. 

It  may  perhaps  be  alleged,  that  those  disorders,  which  called 
for  a  change  of  government  afterwards  increased.  Doubtless  this 
was  the  case.  And  the  apostles  knew  it  would  be  so.  And  they 
were  authorized  to  do  whatever  the  order  and  prosperity  of  the 
church  then  required,  and  whatever  it  would  require  in  time  to 
come.  It  was  perfectly  within  their  province,  to  give  instructions 
for  the  use  of  Christians  through  all  ages.  In  many  respects 
they  actually  did  this.  Why  did  they  not  say  something  in  favor 
of  prelacy  ?  If  they  saw  that  this  was  an  establishment  which 
would  be  called  for  in  following  ages,  though  not  called  for  at 
that  time  ;  why  did  they  not  leave  a  direction  to  this  effect, — 
that  when  circumstances  should  require  it,  ministers  and  churches 
.should  introduce  prelacy,  or,  at  least  should  have  Hbcrty  to  do  it? 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is,  that  the  introduction 
of  prelacy  in  times  subsequent  to  the  apostles,  was  an  innovation 


PRELACY.  531 

wholly  unauthorized,  —  a  measure  founded  on  reasons,  which  the 
apostles  themselves  had  fully  considered,  but  which  they  did  not . 
re<^ard  as  favoring  such  a  change.  The  measure  was  evidently 
adopted  from  the  faulty  inclination  so  frequently  found  even  in 
good  men,  to  overlook  the  divine  directions,  and  to  think  them-- 
selves  able  to  improve  the  simple  institutions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  early  Christian  fathers  were  certainly  fallible.  And  one 
of  the  great  mistakes  Avhich  they  made  was,  their  supposing  that 
the  evils  which  they  wished  to  remedy,  arose  from  a  defect  in  the 
system  of  ecclesiastical  order  which  was  established  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  Had  this  really  been  the  case ;  then  some 
alteration  in  that  system  might  have  answered  the  purpose  in- 
tended. But  the  dissensions  and  party  strife  which  prevailed, 
sprung  from  another  source,  that  is  the  corrupt  inclinations  of  men.' 
This  is  what  we  are  expressly  taught  by  the  Apostle,  who  says 
to  the  Corinthian  church  with  reference  to  this  very  subject :  "  ye 
are  yet  carnal ; "  that  is,  under  the  influence  of  corrupt,  earthly 
affection.  "  For  whereas  there  is  among  you  envying,  and  strife, 
and  divisions  ;  are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  as  men  ?  "  It  was 
this  carnal,  sinful  state  of  Christians,  not  the  want  of  a  bishop, 
which  was  the  source  of  the  evils  complained  of.  Accordingly 
when  the  Apostle  strives  most  earnestly  to  remedy  these  evils, 
he  does  not  recommend  any  change  whatever  in  the  plan  of 
church  government.  And  you  will  observe  that,  instead  of  pro- 
posing that  one  church  officer  should  be  invested  with  authority 
over  others,  he  really  teaches  the  contrary,  laboring  to  make  the 
impression,  that  the  ministers  of  religion,  even  Paul  and  Apollos 
and  Cephas,  are  in  themselves  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing ;  that 
their  success  depends  wholly  on  God  ;  that  they  are  all  fellow- 
laborers  and  fellow-servants  of  Christ,  and  therefore  that  one 
of  them  should  not  be  set  up  above  others.  Instead  of  giving 
advice  to  the  Corinthians,  to  put  down  their  dissensions  by  estab- 
hshing  a  superior  order  in  the  ministry,  and  a  more  consolidated 
government  in  the  church,  he  deals  plainly  and  faithfully  with 
their  hearts,  and  tells  them  that  the  disorders  of  which  he  com- 


532  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

plains,  originated  there.  He  teaches  that  the  way  to  rid  them- 
selves of  the  evils  existing  among  them  is  to  subdue  that  spiritual 
€vil  from  which  they  sprung. 

Let  not  the  lesson  here  taught,  be  forgotten.  If  you  suppose, 
that  the  disorders  which  have  existed  and  the  unhappy  events 
which  have  taken  place  in  the  Puritan  churches  and  among  the 
Puritan  ministers  of  New  England,  have  sprung  from  defects  in 
oup  plan  of  Church  Government,  and  that  a  remedy  may  be 
found  in  the  adoption  of  an  essentially  different  plan  ;  you  have, 
in  my  apprehension,  fallen  into  a  great  mistake.  There  may 
indeed  be  faults,  as  I  doubt  not  there  are,  in  our  system  of 
ecclesiastical  pohty,  and  these  faults  may  have  more  or  less  aug- 
mented the  evils  complained  of;  and  in  relation  to  this  matter, 
the  Head  of  the  Church  may  call  us  to  some  special  duties.  But 
the  principal  source  of  the  evils  lies  in  the  faulty  dipositions  and 
characters  of  ministers  and  church  members.  Were  ministers 
and  Christians  right,  —  did  they  bear  the  image  of  Christ,  and 
abound  in  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  they  would  honor  God,  and 
be  peaceful,  orderly  and  happy,  although  their  form  of  govern- 
ment may  be  imperfect.  But  if  they  are  essentially  wanting 
in  these  moral  excellencies,  —  if,  like  Christians  at  Corinth,  they 
are  carnal  and  walk  as  unsanctified  men ;  evils  will  come.  It  is 
in  vain  to  expect  that,  by  any  change  in  outward  forms,  and 
particularly  by  a  change  unauthorized  by  the  word  of  God,  we 
can  prevent  those  disorders,  which  arise  from  the  corruptions  of 
men.  The  Christian  fathers  thought  they  could  cure  prevailing 
divisions  and  wicked  practices  among  Christians  by  changing  the 
form  of  church  government,  and  by  giving  higher,  and  still  higher 
authority  to  bishops.  But  did  they  succeed  ?  Did  disorder  and 
immorality  subside  ?  Or  did  they  grow  less  in  proportion  as  the 
power  of  hierarchs  was  increased  ?  How  was  it,  when  ecclesi- 
astical government  was  most  completely  consolidated,  and  the 
CHIEF  BISHOP  was  invested  with  plenary  authority,  not  only  over 
churches  and  priests,  but  over  kings  and  emperors  ?  When  was 
it  that  moral  evils  the  most  tremendous  overspread  the  nations 
of  Christendom  ?     And  what  was  the  actual  result  of  the  prela- 


PRELACY.  533. 

tical  Scheme  of  church  government,  from  its  commencement  and 
gradual  spread  in  ages  subsequent  to  the  apostles,  to  the  period  of 
its  highest  supremacy  just  before  the  Reformation  ?  Prelacy  cer- 
tainly had  a  long  and  thorough  trial.     And  -what  was  the  result  ? 

I  have  been  ^Yi^ing  to  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
prelacy  was  introduced  in  the  period  immediately  succeeding  the 
apostles. 

But  I  have  admitted  too  much.  And  I  must  here  state  it,  as 
another  serious  objection  against  prelacy,  that  it  does  as  really 
fail  of  being  supported  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 
immediately  following  the  apostles,  as  by  the  apostles  themselves. 

If  the  Episcopal  scheme  had  prevailed  at  that  early  period,  it 
would  seem  to  furnish  a  plausible  argument  in  its  favor  ;  as  it 
might  be  alleged,  that  those  Christians  who  lived  at  that  time,  and 
some  of  whom  had  even  been  personally  acquainted  with  the  apos- 
tles, undoubtedly  knew  what  the  mind  of  the  apostles  was,  and 
were  disposed  to  conform  to  it.  But  it  has  been  clearly  shown  by 
different  writers,  and  acknowledged  by  many  Episcopalians,  that 
prelacy  has  not  the  benefit  of  this  argument.  I  have  no  time  to 
go  into  a  particular  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case  ;  and 
must  content  myself,  according  to  a  previous  suggestion,  Avith 
merely  laying  before  you,  in  a  few  simple  propositions,  what  have 
been  the  results  of  the  most  laborious  and  candid  investigation  of 
the  subject ;  referring  you  to  the  works  in  which  the  investigation 
is  found. 

1.  No  satisfactory  proof  can  be  derived  from  Ecclesiastical 
History,  that  prelacy  prevailed  more  or  less  during  the  first  cen- 
tury. The  Letters  of  Ignatius,  it  is  well  known,  are  of  such 
doubtful  authority,  that  they  cannot  be  properly  appealed  to  in 
this  controversy.  Clement's  Letters,  which  are  allowed  to  be 
genuine,  and  which  were  written  near  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, contain  evidence  against  the  existence  of  prelacy  at  that  time. 
See  quotations  from  Clement's  Letters,  in  Coleman's  Primitive 
Church,  p.  164,  5. 

2.  There  is  no  clear  evidence  that  prelacy  prevailed,  during  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century.     The  fathers,  who  lived  at  that 

45* 


534  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

period,  have  left  nothing  that  favors  the  idea  that  this  -was  the 
case  ;  and  the  writings  of  those  who  followed,  contain  much  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  The  supposition  of  some  Episcopalians,  that 
the  apostles  gave  oral  instructions,  which  are  not  recorded,  but 
which  were  of  divine  authority,  and  were  carried  into  effect  by 
those  who  came  after  them,  has  nothing  to  support  it,  or  to  render 
it  even  probable.  If  there  were  any  such  instructions,  who  were 
the  men  that  must  have  received  them,  and  that  must  have 
remembered  and  executed  them,  except  those  who  had  a  personal 
intercourse  with  the  apostles  ?  But  as  it  is  evident  that  neither 
they  nor  their  immediate  successors  did  execute  any  such  instruc- 
tions ;  we  conclude  that  no  such  instructions  had  been  received. 
For  who  would  be  willing  to  charge  the  early  fathers  with  neglect- 
ing, for  fifty  years,  instructions  which  some  of  them  had  received, 
and  which  all  of  them  knew  had  been  received,  from  the  lips  of 
the  apostles  ?  That  the  apostles  gave  directions  in  favor  of  pre- 
lacy, wliich  were  to  remain  unexecuted  till  a  distant  future  time, 
is  utterly  incredible.  But  there  is  positive  evidence,  that  during 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century  it  was  as  it  had  been  before  ; 
—  that  the  same  officers,  without  distinction  of  rank,  were  called 
bishops  and  presbyters  interchangeably,  and  that  the  members  of 
the  church  had  an  important  agency  in  disciplining  offenders,  and 
in  managino;  other  ecclesistical  affairs. 

3.  When  prelacy  was  introduced,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  or  beginning  of  the  third  century,  it  was  introduced  very 
gradually.  And  for  some  time  after  bishops  began  to  be  distin- 
guished above  their  brethren,  it  was  only  a  temporary  or  occasional 
distinction,  —  much  hke  the  distinction  which  is  now  conferred  on 
those  who  are  made  Moderators  or  Presidents  of  ecclesiastical 
Assemblies,  —  those  bishops  still  having  a  permanent  oversight 
over  single  churches,  not  over  a  diocese,  and  claiming  no  exclusive 
right  of  ordination.  There  was  nothing  which  had  the  essential 
features  of  what  is  now  called  prelacy,  for  at  least  two  hundred 
years  after  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era.  And  while 
modem  Episcopalians  can  plead  in  defence  of  their  scheme,  the 
general  practice  of  the  church  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  and  following 


PRELACY.  635 

centuries,  they  cannot  plead  that  such  a  practice  gained  footing, 
more  or  less,  in  the  earliest  periods  of  the  church.  Accordingly, 
when  they  speak  oi primitive  practice  as  in  their  favor,  they  ought 
in  justice  to  say,  that  they  use  the  word  primitive  with  great  lati- 
tude, and  not  as  relating  to  any  time  previous  to  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  or  beginning  of  the  third  century.  What  is  most 
properly  called  primitive,  they  cannot  claim.  —  Wlien  any  man  in 
New  England  says,  that  it  was  the  primitive  practice  of  the  Puri- 
tans to  keep  the  Sabbath  very  strictly,  and  to  take  special  pains 
for  the  education  of  the  young  ;  is  he  not  understood  by  every  one 
to  refer  to  their  practice  the  first  forty  or  fifty  years  after  their 
arrival  here  ?  And  should  we  not  think  him  guilty  of  impro- 
priety, if  he  should  assert  that  this  or  that  was  the  primitive  prac- 
tice of  the  Puritans  in  New  England,  when  there  was  no  such 
practice  for  the  first  half  century  and  more,  and  the  practice 
spoken  of  was  introduced  gradually  afterwards,  and  was  a  real 
innovation  upon  primitive  usage,  and  a  palpable  departure  from 
it  ?     Primitive  practice  is  the  original  or  first  practice. 

The  following  are  the  principal  works  to  which  I  must  refer 
those,  who  wish  to  pursue  the  examination  of  the  subject  more  par- 
ticularly and  fully,  than  I  am  able  to  do  in  these  Lectures. 

Jerome's  Annotations  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  Neander's  His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church,  and  his  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles.  Campbell's  Lectures  on  Eccle- 
siastical History.  Chauncy's  Views  of  Episcopacy.  Inquiry  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  Primitive  Church,  by  Sir  Peter  King, 
Chancellor  of  England.  Review  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  by  Dr. 
Mason  in  the  Christian  Magazine.  Miller's  Letters  on  the  Consti- 
tution and  Order  of  the  Christian  IMinistry.  Goode's  Divine  Rule 
of  Faith  and  Practice,  particularly  Vol.  IL  Smyth  on  Presbytery 
and  Prelacy.  Barnes's  Apostolic  Church.  Coleman's  Primitive 
Church. 


LECTURE    CXXIV. 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.      PRELACY. 

The  Episcopal  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  as  now  held  by 
one  part  of  Episcopal  ministers  in  England  and  America,  is 
rejected  by  another  part.  The  doctrine  I  understand  to  be  this  ; 
that  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  dispensation  are  restricted 
chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  channel  of  a  ministry  episcopally 
ordained  ;  that  no  one  is  a  true  minister  of  the  gospel,  unless  he 
has  been  ordained  by  a  bishop,  consecrated  by  another  bishop,  and 
he  by  another,  and  so  on  through  an  unbroken  series  of  duly  con- 
secrated bishops  extending  back  to  the  apostles  ;  that  no  ministers 
who  are  not  found  in  that  line  of  succession,  have  a  right  to 
preach,  or  to  administer  the  sacraments ;  that  if  non-episcopal 
ministers  undertake  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments, 
they  assume  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  their  ministrations 
must  be  expected  to  prove  ineflBcacious,  as  they  have  not  received 
and  cannot  communicate  the  sacramental  virtue ;  that  whatever 
their  intellectual  and  spiritual  quahfications  may  be,  they  are  not 
true  Christian  ministers  ;  while  those  who  have  been  Episcopally 
ordained  are  to  be  acknowledged  as  true  ministers  of  Christ,  how- 
ever destitute  of  knowledge  and  piety. 

There  are  some  doctrines  which  are  so  extravagant,  that  the 
bare  statement  of  them  is,  with  all  intelligent  and  unprejudiced 
persons,  a  sufficient  confutation.  And  I  think  this  doctrine  is 
nearly  of  this  character. 

All  that  my  hmits  permit  me  to  do,  will  be  to  make  some  quo- 


PRELACY.  53T 

tations  from  writers  of  the  highest  reputation,  -with  a  few  remarks 
of  my  own. 

"  Whether  we  consider  the  palpable  absurdity  of  this  doctrine, 
its  utter  destitution  of  historical  evidence,  or  the  outrage  it  implies 
on  all  Christian  charity,  it  is  equallj'  revolting.  The  arguments 
against  it  are  infinite  ;  the  evidence  for  it  absolutely  nothing.  It 
rests  not  upon  one  doubtful  assumption,  but  upon  fifty.  First,  the 
very  basis  on  which  it  rests  —  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  to  be  con- 
sidered undoubtedly  and  exclusively  of  apostolical  origin  —  has 
been  most  fiercely  disputed  by  men  of  equal  erudition  and  acute- 
ness,  and,  so  far  as  can  bo  judged,  of  equal  integrity  and  piety. 
And  one  would  think  that  the  only  lesson,  which  could  be  learned 
from  the  controversy,  would  be  the  duty  of  mutual  charity,  and  a 
disposition  to  concede,  that  the  blessings  of  Christianity  are  com- 
patible with  various  systems  of  church  polity.  God  forbid  that  we 
should  for  a  moment  admit  that  they  arc  restricted  to  any  one.  — 
But  this  first  proposition,  however  doubtful,  is  susceptible  of  evi- 
dence almost  demonstrative,  compared  with  that  oflFered  for  half  a. 
dozen  others  involved  in  the  integral  reception  of  the  doctrine  of 
apostolical  succession.  Accordingly,  there  are  thousands  of  Epis- 
copalians, who,  while  they  affirm  a  preponderance  of  evidence  in 
favor  of  Episcopacy,  contemptuously  repudiate  this  incomprehensi- 
ble dogma.  —  The  theory  is,  that  each  bishop,  from  the  apostolic 
times,  has  received  in  his  consecration  a  mysterious  '  gift,'  and 
also  transmits  to  every  priest  at  his  ordination  a  mysterious  '  gift,' 
indicated  by  the  awful  words.  Receive  the  Holt/  Ghost;  that  on 
this  the  right  of  priests  to  assume  their  functions,  and  the  preter- 
natural grace  of  the  sacraments  administered  by  them,  depends  ; 
that  bishops,  once  consecrated,  instantly  become  invested  with  the 
remarkable  property  of  transmitting  the  '  gift '  to  others  ;  — 
that  this  high  gift  has  been  incorruptibly  transmitted  —  from  the 
primitive  age  till  now  —  through  the  hands  of  impure,  profligate, 
and  heretical  ecclesiastics  ;  —  and  that  it  is  perfectly  irrespective 
of  the  moral  character  and  qualifications  of  l>oth  bishop  and 
priest." 

"  Numberless  are  the  questions  which  reason  and  charity  forth- 


538  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

•with  put  to  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine.  What  is  imparted  ? 
What  transmitted  ?  —  Is  consecration  or  ordination  accompanied, 
(as  in  primitive  times,)  bj  miraculous  powers,  by  any  invigoration 
of  intellect,  by  increase  of  knowledge,  by  greater  putity  of 
heart  ?  It  is  not  pretended.  Do  the  parties  themselves  profess 
to  be  conscious  of  receiving  the  gift  ?  No.  Is  the  conveyance 
made  evident  to  us  by  any  proof,  which  certifies  any  fact 
whatsoever,  by  sense,  experience,  or  consciousness  ?  It  is  not 
afl5rmed." 

"  Again,  who  can  certify  that  this  gift  has  been  incorruptibly 
transmitted,  through  the  impurities,  heresies,  and  ignorance  of  the 
dark  ages  ?  —  The  chances  are  infinite  that  there  have  been  flaws 
somewhere  or  other,  in  the  long  chain  of  succession  ;  and  —  as  no 
one  knows  where  the  fatal  breach  may  have  been,  it  is  sufficient  to 
spread  universal  panic  through  the  whole  church.  What  bishop 
can  be  sure  that  he  and  his  predecessors  in  the  same  line  have 
always  been  duly  consecrated  ?  Or  what  presbyter,  that  he  was 
ordained  by  a  bishop  who  had  a  right  to  ordain?  "  — "  But  the 
diflSculties  do  not  end  here.  It  is  asked,  how  a  man  who  is  no 
true  Christian,  can  be  a  true  Christian  minister;  —  how  he,  who 
is  not  even  a  disciple  of  Christ,  can  be  a  genuine  successor  of  the 
apostles?  " 

"But  —  will  Christians  be  content  to  receive  this  strange  doc- 
trine ?  Are  they  willing  to  sacrifice  even  charity  itself  to  an 
absurdity  ?  Powerful  as  are  the  arguments  on  all  hands  against 
this  paradox,  none  is  so  powerful  with  us  as  this.  We  feel  that  if 
there  Avere  nothing  else  to  say,  there  is  no  proposition  more  cer- 
tain, than  that  a  dogma,  which  consigns  the  Lutheran,  the  Scot- 
tish, and  indeed  the  whole  reformed  non-episcopal  clergy  to  con- 
tempt, however  Icoly,  and  which  authenticates  the  claims  of  every 
Episcopal  priest,  hoivever  unholy,  must  be  utterly  alien  from  the  spi- 
rit of  the  New  Testament."* 

"  Since  the  first  century,  not  less,  in  all  probability,  than  a 
hundred  thousand  persons  have  exercised  the  functions  of  bishops. 
That  many  of  these  have  not  been  bishops  by  apostolic  succession, 
*  See  Edinburgh  Review,  1843,  on  Puseyism,  or.  the  Oxford  Tractarian  School. 


PRELACY.  539 

is  quite  certain.  Hooker  admits  that  deviations  from  the  general 
rule  liave  been  frequent,  and,  with  a  boldness  worthy  of  his  high 
and  statesman-like  intellect,  pronounces  them  to  have  been  often 
justifiable."* 

The  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  is  overthrown  by  the 
clear  and  abundant  evidence  which  we  have  from  the  early  fathers, 
that  ordination  was  performed  by  presbyters.  Any  one  who  wishes 
to  be  acquainted  Avith  this  evidence  in  its  details,  may  consult 
Goode's  Divine  Rule,  Vol.  II,  Coleman's  work  on  the  Constitution 
and  Worship  of  the  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,  Smyth's 
Presbytery  and  Prelacy,  and  other  well  known  works. 

That  there  may  be  lawful  ordinations  by  presbyters  without  a 
bishop  is  conceded  and  maintained  by  many  Episcopalians,  and 
those  of  the  first  respectability.  Hooker  gives  it  as  his  decided 
opinion,  "  that  there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  suflBcient 
reason  to  allow  ordinations  made  without  a  bishop." 

Archbishop  Whately,  a  man  of  distinguished  talents,  learning, 
and  integrity,  and  sustaining  the  highest  office  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  after  a  thorough  examination  of  the  doctrine  of  apostolic 
succession,  comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  is  destitute  of  satisfac- 
tory proof.  » 

He  says  :  "  If  a  man  consider  it  as  highly  probable  that  the 
particular  nmtister  at  whose  hands  he  receives  the  sacred  ordi- 
nances, is  really  apostolically  descended,  this  is  the  very  utmost 
point  to  which  he  can,  with  any  semblance  of  reason,  attain  ;  and 
the  more  he  reflects  and  inquires,  the  more  cause  for  hesitation 
will  he  find.  There  is  not  a  minister  in  Christendom,  who  is  able 
to  trace  up,  with  any  approach  to  certainty,  his  own  spiritual  pedi- 
gree." "  If  a  bishop  has  not  been  duly  consecrated  —  his  ordi- 
nations are  null ;  and  so  are  the  ministrations  of  those  ordained  by 
him,  —  and  so  on  without  end.  The  poisonous  taint  of  informal- 
ity, if  it  once  creep  in  undetected,  will  spread  the  infection  of 
nullity  to  an  indefinite  extent.  And  who  can  pronounce  that 
durin;'  the  dark  a-zies,  no  such  taint  was  ever  introduced  ? 
Irregularities  could  not  have  been  wholly  excluded,  without  a 
*  See  Edinburgh  Review  for  1839,  On  Cliurch  and  State. 


SlO  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

perpetual  miracle.  Amidst  the  numerous  corruptions  of  doctrine 
and  of  practice,  and  gross  superstitions,  that  crept  in  —  we  find 
descriptions  not  only  of  the  profound  ignorance  and  profligacy  of 
many  of  the  clergy,  but  of  the  grossest  irregularities  in  respect  of 
discipline  and  form.  We  read  of  bishops  consecrated  when  mere 
children  ;  —  of  men  officiating  who  barely  knew  their  letters  ;  — 
of  prelates  expelled,  and  others  put  in  their  place,  by  violence  ;  — 
of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen  and  habitual  drunkards,  admit- 
ted to  holy  orders  ;  and  in  short,  of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind 
of  disorder  and  indecency.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one,  even 
moderately  acquainted  with  history,  can  feel  —  any  approach  to 
certainty,  that  amidst  all  this  confusion  and  corruption,  every 
requisite  form  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  adhered  to  ;  —  and 
that  no  one  not  duly  consecrated  or  ordained,  was  admitted  to 
sacred  offices. 

"  The  ultimate  consequence  must  be,  that  any  one  who  sincerely 
believes  that  his  claim  to  the  benefits  of  the  gospel  covenant 
depends  on  his  own  minister's  claim  to  the  supposed  sacramental 
virtue  of  true  ordination,  and  this  again,  on  perfect  apostolical 
succession,  —  must  be  involved,  in  proportion  as  he  reads,  and 
inquires,  and  reflects  on  the  subject,  in  the  most  distressing  doubt 
aad  perplexity." 

Archbishop  Usher,  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Epis- 
copal church,  affirmed,  that  in  ancient  times  presbyters  alone  suc- 
cessively ordained  even  bishops.  And  he  said,  he  honored  the 
non-episcopal  churches  of  Europe  as  true  members  of  the  church 
■universal,  and  should  readily  receive  the  sacrament  at  the  hands 
of  Dutch  ministers,  if  he  were  in  Holland.  Bishop  Stillingfleet 
says:  "It  was  acknowledged  by  the  stoutest  champions  of  Epis- 
copacy, before  these  late  unhappy  divisions,  that  ordination  per- 
formed by  presbj'ters  in  case  of  necessity,  is  valid."  Sir  Peter 
King  says,  he  finds  clearer  proofs  of  presbyters  ordaining,  in  the 
early  church,  than  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  Supper.  I 
might  multiply  testimonies  of  the  like  kind  from  Episcopalians 
almost  without  end.  But  it  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  give  you 
a  few  specimens. 


PRELACY.  541 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  gives  a 
very  particular  description  of  what  he  regards  as  essential  quali- 
fications of  a  bishop.  But  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  circum- 
stance of  his  being  duly  ordained.  Had  he  attached  such  conse- 
quence to  this  circumstance,  as  many  do  at  this  day,  it  is  not  pro- 
bable he  would  have  passed  it  in  silence.  In  this  and  in  every 
other  instance  he  showed,  that  his  mind  was  intent  upon  important 
realities^  and  not  upon  ouUcard  forms.  It  is  indeed  said,  in 
order  to  show  the  importance  of  outward,  visible  forms  and  rites, 
that  man  must  have  a  body  as  well  as  a  spirit.  I  agree  to  this. 
But  we  must  take  care  to  let  the  body  be  as  God  has  made  it, 
never  attempting  to  add  to  it,  or  in  any  way  to  alter  it.  If  true 
spiritual  religion  is  to  be  embodied  in  outward  forms  and  ceremo- 
nies, let  those  forms  and  ceremonies  be  as  God  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment appointed  them  to  be.  This  visible  body  of  internal,  invisible 
Christianity,  when  not  misshapen  or  made  monstrous  by  man's 
contrivances,  is  a  fit  companion  and  help  to  the  spirit. 

I  must  now  refer  this  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  to  your 
own  free  consideration  ;  only  expressing  my  conviction,  that  the 
doctrine  understood  in  that  high  and  exclusive  sense  in  which  I 
have  here  considered  it,  though  held  very  tenaciously  by  many  at 
the  present  time,  will,  by  its  extravagance  and  uncharitableness, 
occasion  reproach  and  injury  to  the  cause  of  episcopacy,  and  Avill» 
for  that  and  other  reasons,  be  gradually,  and  in  the  end,  entirely 
abandoned  by  Protestant  Episcopalians,  —  retaining  its  seat  only 
where  it  properly  belongs,  that  is,  in  the  Catholic  church. 

I  cannot  leave  the  present  topic  without  adverting  to  the  gene- 
ral question  of  divine  appointment  and  divine  authority,  in  regard 
to  the  gospel  ministry.  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  hold 
as  much  as  Episcopalians,  that  the  gospel  ministry  is  appointed  of 
God,  and  derives  all  its  authority  ultimately  from  God,  not  from 
man.  But  it  is  here,  as  in  other  cases,  that  God's  appointment  is 
ordinarily  carried  into  effect  and  his  government  administered, 
ttirough  the  agency  of  man.  But  it  would  be  culpable  presump- 
tion in  us  to  decide,  that  the  manner  in  which  God  executes  his 
appointments  is  and  must  be  always  the  same.     In  his  infinite 

VOL.  III.  46 


542  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

wisdora,  he  chooses  a  variety  of  methods,  alwajs  adapting  them  to 
circumstances,  and  to  the  ends  which  he  has  in  view.  Under  the 
former  dispensation,  he  gave  prophets  to  his  people,  in  ways 
suited  to  the  purposes  intended.  At  the  beginning  of  the  new 
dispensation,  he  gave  apostles  to  be  witnesses  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  preachers  of  his  gospel,  the  first  founders  of  Christian 
churches,  etc.,  and  he  gave  them  in  a  manner  adapted  to  those 
objects.  But  even  here,  the  manner  was  not  the  same.  Matthias 
was  chosen  in  a  way  different  from  the  other  eleven,  and  Paul  in 
a  way  different  from  any  of  the  twelve.  But  the  age  of  miracles 
has  ceased,  and  the  divine  appointment  is  now  executed  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  providence.  The  essential  (jualifications  of 
ministers  are  pointed  out  by  an  inspired  Apostle,  but  not  the  par- 
ticular manner  in  which  they  shall  come  into  the  sacred  office. 
If  ministers  possess  the  qualifications  required,  and  are  inducted 
into  the  ministry  in  a  regular  and  becoming  manner,  and  do  the 
duties  of  the  office  faithfully,  they  are  God's  ministers,  and  he 
truly  gives  them  for  the  good  of  his  church,  whether  he  brings 
them  into  the  office  in  one  way  or  another.  Faithful  ministers  in 
the  episcopal  church  are  God's  gift,  and  Christians  should  receive 
them  as  such.  And  many  and  precious  have  been  these  gifts. 
And  are  not  ministers  in  evangehcal  churches  of  other  names 
equally  God's  gift  ?  And  should  not  Christians,  particularly 
those  who  have  received  spiritual  profit  under  their  ministry, 
thank  God  for  them,  and  for  all  the  blessings  resulting  from  their 
labors  ?  Whatever  may  be  the  particular  mode  of  proceeding 
among  men  in  introducing  well  qualified  and  faithful  ministers 
into  the  sacred  office,  they  are  there  hy  divine  appointment.  They 
are  God's  ministers  ;  and  he  owns  them  and  blesses  them  as  such. 
And  they  have  equally  a  divine  right  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
the  ministerial  office. 

The  principle  which  I  maintain  may  be  illustrated  by  a  refer- 
ence to  civil  government.  The  Bible  teaches  as  plainly  and 
expressly,  that  civil  rulers  are  ministers  of  God,  and  divinely 
appointed,  as  that  preachers  of  the  gospel  and  pastors  of  churches 
are  so.     Moses,  and   Samuel,  and  Saul,  and  David,  were  set 


PRELACY.  543 

apart  to  their  office  as  rulers,  by  a  special  and  miraculous  divine 
interposition.  Afterwards  the  office  of  chief  ruler  or  king  became 
hereditary  ;  and  those  who  held  the  office  on  the  ground  of  here- 
ditary right  were  lawful  kings,  and  were  divinely  appointed.  But 
observe,  that  when  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  the  Jews,  and 
acquired  dominion  over  them,  Jeremiah  exhorted  and  commanded 
them  to  "  serve  the  king  of  Babylon,"  and  rebuked  the  false 
prophets  who  endeavored  to  persuade  them  not  to  serve  him. 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  then  the  divinely  appointed  ruler  of  the 
Jews  ;  —  God  sent  him  to  reign  over  them,  and  it  Avas  their  duty 
to  submit  to  him  as  "  the  ordinance  of  God  ; "  and  obedience  to 
him  became  obedience  to  God.  Even  when  the  Jews  returned 
from  their  captivity,  their  rulers  were  indebted  for  their  authoritj'^ 
to  Cyrus  and  his  successors.  Come  now  to  the  time  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles.  Through  the  arrangements  of  providence,  the 
supreme  government  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Romans, 
and  Caesar  was  the  king  of  the  Jewish  nation.  But  he  came  to  be 
so,  not  by  any  supernatural  or  special  divine  designation,  but  by 
the  very  ambiguous  right  of  conquest  and  superior  power.  It  was 
however  a  wise  and  righteous  God  that  shaped  the  concerns  of 
both  these  nations,  and,  by  his  overruling  Providence,  subjected 
the  Jews  to  the  Roman  power.  And  whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
means  by  which  the  Romans  brought  the  Jews  into  subjection,  or 
of  the  way  in  which  Caesar  came  to  have  authority  over  them ; 
yet  as,  under  divine  providence,  he  actually  possessed  that 
authority,  and  was  the  king  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  recognized  that 
authority  and  submitted  to  it,  and  inculcated  the  duty  of  obe- 
dience upon  his  disciples.  The  apostles  did  the  same.  The  rulers 
whom  they  acknowledged  as  the  ministers  of  God,  and  whom 
Christians  were  to  honor  and  obey,  were  generally  tyrannical  and 
cruel  men.  But  the  apostles  considered  them  as  appointed  and 
sent  of  God  to  fill  the  office  of  rulers.  The  language  of  Paul, 
Rom.  xiii,  is  very  plain.  He  calls  rulers,  —  such  as  were  then  in 
office, —  "  the  higher  powers  ;  "  and  says  they  are  "  of  God,"  — 
"  ordained  of  God,"  —  "  the  ordinance  of  God,"  and  "  ministers 
of  God ;  "  and  requires  Christians  to  be  subject  to  them. 


544  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

Follow  now  the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire.  See  how  it  was 
rent  asunder  by  factions  and  revolutions,  and  divided  and  subdi- 
vided into  a  great  number  of  smaller  kingdoms,  each  one  having 
its  own  ruler,  and  generally  on  the  ground  of  hereditary  right. 
Come  at  length  to  the  British  nation.  Whoever  was  the  king, 
and  however  he  came  to  be  so,  he  was  "  the  minister  of  God,'^  and 
was  made  so  by  the  arrangements  of  providence  ;  and  he  was 
divinely  designated  to  his  office,  as  really,  though  not  in  the  same 
manner,  as  David  was.  You  finally  reach  our  own  country. 
Casting  off  the  British  authorit}^,  we  established  a  government  and 
elected  rulers  in  our  own  way.  But  our  Governors,  and  Presi- 
dents, and  Judges  are  all  "  ministers  of  God ;  "  and  government 
in  our  Republican  form  is  as  much  a  divine  institution,  as  in  the 
Kingly  or  Imperial  form.  Episcopalians  fully  recognize  this  prin- 
ciple, and,  in  their  37th  Article,  expressly  affirm  the  duty  of  "  a 
respectful  obedience  to  the  civil  authority,  regularly  and  legiti- 
mately constituted."  They  do  not  mean  that  a  civil  authority 
must  be  monarcJiical,  or  hereditmy,  or  be  constituted  in  any  one 
particular  way.  They  acknowledge  the  legitimate  authority  of 
our  RepubUcan  rulers,  just  as  they  are,  and  have  altered  the 
English  prayer  for  the  King  into  an  American  prayer  for  the  Pre- 
sident ;  and  in  all  respects  they  conduct  themselves  as  faithful 
subjects  of  our  Republican  government.  And  if  our  government 
should  again  be  changed,  and  go  back  to  what  it  was  ;  if  it  should 
come  to  pass,  that  the  King  of  Great  Britain  should  be  our  King, 
and  we  should  be  under  a  hereditary  Monarch,  American  Episco- 
palians would  readily  submit  to  that  government,  and  would 
restore  the  Liturgy  to  its  original  form,  so  that  they  might  offer  up 
prayer  for  the  King  and  Queen  and  the  Royal  Family.  And  if 
after  a  while  there  should  be  still  another  revolution,  and  another 
Oliver  Cromwell  should  come  to  be  established  as  our  chief  ruler 
and  Protector ;  I  suppose  Episcopalians  would  still  be  subject  to 
"  the  powers  that  be,"  and  would  pray  for  the  Lord  Protector, 
just  as  they  now  do  for  the  President.  Episcopalians  are  good 
citizens,  and  hold  to  sound  principles  in  regard  to  civil  govern- 
ment ;  —  which  is  as  truly  an  ordinance  of  God  as  the  gospel  min- 
istry. 


PRELACY.  545 

In  this  way  we  may  get  a  just  idea  of  the  principle  of  ^acacn- 
siorij  —  succession  not  as  an  abstract  thing,  but  as  a  rcalil//,  a 
matter  of  fact.  There  has  been  a  succession  of  rulers  in  the  dif- 
ferent nations  of  Europe,  how  many  soever  may  have  been  the 
interruptions  and  changes  in  the  order  of  that  succession.  So  in 
these  United  States.  Have  we  not,  from  the  beginning  had  a 
succession  of  rulers  ?  For  a  long  time  our  chief  ruler  was  the 
King  of  Great  Britain.  George  the  Third  was  the  last.  "  He 
was  the  predecessor  of  George  Washington.  There  was  indeed 
a  time  when  no  one  man  was  chief  ruler  of  all  these  States,  — 
although  they  were  in  some  respects,  under  the  authority  of  the 
Old  Congress.  But  at  length  Washington  became  our  Chief 
Magistrate,  as  truly  as  George  the  Third  had  been  before.  Ac- 
cordingly, as  chief  ruler  of  all  these  States,  Washington  was 
the  successor  of  George  the  Third.  Thus  these  American 
States  have  had  from  the  beginning  a  succession  of  rulers,  —  a 
real  succession,  though  not  an  unvaried  or  unbroken  succession  ; 
a  succession  of  rulers  invested  with  their  office  in  different  ways, 
but  all  "  ordained  of  God."  No  man  in  our  Republic  can  be 
President,  Governor  or  Judge,  unless  he  is  regularly  brought  into 
office  according  to  our  Republican  Constitution  and  Laws.  But 
when  he  is  thus  regularly  brought  into  office,  is  he  not  invested 
with  a  just  authority  ?  And  does  not  God  give  rulers  in  this  way 
as  truly  as  in  any  other?  Is  not  a  Repubhcan  government 
founded  on  divine  right,  as  much  as  an  hereditary  monarchy  ? 
Does  the  King  of  Great  Britain  or  any  of  the  governments  of 
Europe  refuse  to  acknowledge  our  government,  and  deny  the 
validity  of  its  acts,  because  it  is  Republican?  And  do  we  refuse 
fellowship  with  the  governments  of  Europe,  because  they  are 
Monarchical  or  Imperial  ?  No.  Men  have  sense  enough  to  man- 
age these  matters  properly  ui  civil  concerns. 

And  I  verily  think  that  Christian  ministers  and  churches  of 
different  countries,  and  different  forms  of  government,  should  have 
as  much  good  sense  and  enlargedness  of  mind,  as  the  officers  and 
members  of  civil  communities.  The  different  denominations  of 
Christians  have  their  order,  their  rules  of  proceeding,  in  regard  to 

46* 


646  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

the  formation  of  churches  and  the  ordination  of  ministers,  —  all 
of  them  regarding  the  church  and  the  ministry  as  divine  institu- 
tions. Their  rules  of  proceeding  may  not  be  perfectly  wise  and 
proper.  But  they  all  have  order  of  some  kind.  Now  if  churches 
or  ministers  have  the  essential  qualifications  prescribed  in  the 
word  of  God,  and  conform  to  the  rules  of  order  in  their  own 
denomination ;  that  is,  if  Richard  Cecil  and  John  Newton  and 
their  churches  conform  to  the  rules  of  the  Episcopal  denomination, 
and  Andrew  Fuller  and  Robert  Hall  and  their  churches  conform 
to  the  rules  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  and  Timothy  Dwight  and 
Edward  Pay  son  and  their  churches,  to  the  rules  of  the  CongregOr 
tional  denomination,  and  Samuel  Davies  and  John  H.  Rice  and 
their  churches,  to  the  rules  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  and 
Wilber  Fisk  and  John  Summerfield  and  their  churches,  to  the 
rules  of  the  Methodist  denomination,  —  assuming  that  these  de- 
nominations do  all  hold  the  essential  truths  and  obey  the  essential 
laws  of  the  gospel,  and  have  severally  their  rules  of  order ;  — 
then  I  say,  all  these  ministers  and  churches  are  to  be  acknowl- 
edged and  treated  by  each  other  as  true  Christian  ministers  and 
vchurches.  And  if  any  one  stands  off  from  others  because  they 
differ  from  him  in  outward  forms  ;  does  he  not  contradict  the  Scrip- 
ture principle  which  he  acknowledges  relative  to  civil  government  ? 
Does  he  not  forget  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  consisteth  in  right- 
eousness, and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  As  to  the  rules 
of  order  —  I  would  insist  upon  them  strenuously,  not  exclusively 
upon  the  order  estabUshed  in  my  own  denomination  ;  but  upon 
order  in  some  ivay^  and  its  appropriate  rules.  If  a  man  calls  him- 
self a  Presbyterian  minister,  or  a  Baptist  minister,  or  an  Episco- 
pal minister,  and  yet  has  not  conformed  to  the  order  established 
in  his  own  denomination,  and  has  not  a  regular  and  honorable 
standing  there  ;  I  cannot  receive  him  in  the  character  he  assumes, 
any  more  than  I  can  receive  one  as  a  congregational  minister,  if 
he  despises  or  neglects  congregational  order.  Congregationalists 
as  well  as  other  denominations  have  rules  of  order  —  rules  which 
are  intended  and  in  some  measure  adapted  to  secure  order.  Our 
rules  may  need  mending.     Still  they  are  rules.     And  good  order 


PRELACY.  647 

is  promoted  more  by  a  strict  observance  of  imperfect  rules,  than 
by  a  partial  observance  of  those  which  are  more  perfect.  Let  us 
always  support  the  principle  of  order ^  not  in  any  one  form  exchi- 
sively^  —  this  would  be  illiberal  and  narrow,  —  but  m  the  several 
forms  in  which  it  is  found  among  good  men.  Let  us  stand  up, 
firmly  and  zealously  in  behalf  of  our  brethren  of  other  names,  as 
well  as  in  our  own  behalf,  for  the  principle  of  order  ;  endeavoring, 
with  a  noble  liberality,  to  promote  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
every  part  of  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ.  Thus  let  us  aim 
to  feel  and  act,  in  some  humble  measure,  as  he  does,  who  is  Head 
over  all  things  to  the  church,  and  who  looks  down  upon  all  the 
branches  of  it  with  equal  kmdness,  and  upon  all  that  is  holy  in 
his  redeemed  people  with  equal  complacency. 

But  the  episcopal  form  of  church  polity  is  sometimes  regarded 
as  a  human  arrangement,  and  is  adopted  because  its  tendency  and 
the  influence  it  actually  exerts,  are  supposed  to  be  better  than 
those  of  any  other  denomination.  Let  us  examine  the  matter  in 
this  light.  Let  us  inquire  whether  the  obvious  tendency  of  prela- 
cy and  the  influence  it  has  exerted  are  such,  as  to  render  it  expe- 
dient for  us  to  adopt  it. 

Let  us  then  turn  our  attention  to  what  is  a  prominent  object  in 
the  episcopal  church,  as  it  is  in  every  other  church,  that  is,  its 
ministers.  And  in  endeavoring  to  satisfy  myself  whether  that 
church  has  a  title  to  be  preferred  before  churches  under  other 
forms,  I  inquire,  not  whether  episcopal  ministers  are  good  men  and 
faithful  ministers,  but  whether  they  are  better  than  others.  If,  as 
the  claim  of  some  is,  they  are  God's  true  ministers,  specially  and 
exclusively  ;  if  at  their  ordination,  they  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
a  sense  in  which  ministers  who  are  ordained  in  other  forms  do  not 
receive  it ;  it  is  certainly  reasonable  to  expect,  that  they  will  excel 
other  ministers  in  those  qualifications  which  the  sacred  office 
requires,  and  in  the  fideUty  and  success  of  their  labors.  Other- 
wise, their  being  thus  endued  with  the  ineffable  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  would  seem  to  be  of  no  value.  Are  then  the  episcopal 
clergy,  as  a  body,  possessed  of  higher  qualifications  than  other 
ministers  ?     Do  they  more  completely  sustain  the  character  of  a 


548  CHURCH     GOVERNMENT. 

bishop  or  elder,  as  drawn  by  an  apostle  ?  Are  they  more  diligent 
and  faithful  in  the  duties  of  their  calling,  or  more  fervent  in  pray- 
er ?  Are  they  more  sound  in  the  faith  ?  Do  they  more  earnestly 
preach  Christ  crucified,  and  more  fully  make  known  his  unsearch- 
able riches  ?  Do  they  exhibit  more  zeal  to  spread  the  word  of 
God,  to  evangelize  the  heathen,  and  convert  the  world  ?  Or  do 
they  make  greater  efforts  and  sacrifices  to  promote  good  institutions 
at  home,  and  to  advance  the  cause  of  learning  and  moraUty  ? 
Have  the  episcopal  clergy  in  our  country  been  superior,  in  any  of 
the  above  mentioned  respects,  to  congregational  or  presbyterian 
ministei's  ?  Cast  your  eye  over  Massachusetts  and  other  parts  of 
New  England  from  its  first  settlement  to  the  present  time,  and 
compare  the  three  orders  of  the  episcopal  clergy  with  congrega- 
tional ministers,  and  see  whether  the  former  have  possessed  higher 
ministerial  excellencies,  than  the  latter ;  or  whether  they  have 
enjoyed  more  visible  tokens  of  the  divine  approbation ;  or  whether 
the  substantial  interests  of  religion  have  been  better  promoted  by 
their  labors  ?  I  do  not  undervalue  the  worth  of  their  characters, 
or  the  usefulness  of  their  labors.  I  only  ask  whether  they  have  been 
superior  to  others.  And  in  conclusion,  I  ask,  whether,  if  we  should 
go  over  to  Episcopalians,  we  should  have  a  prospect  of  being  con- 
nected with  better  ministers. 

Pass  then  from  the  ministry  to  the  churches,  and  inquire, 
whether  those  of  the  episcopal  order  are  better  than  those  of  other 
denominations.  Do  the  members  of  episcopal  churches  exhibit 
more  satisfactory  evidence  of  piety  ?  Are  higher  qualifications 
required  of  persons  who  are  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  the  church 
and  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  ?  Do  episcopal  churches  main- 
tain a  more  vigilant  inspection  and  discipline  over  their  members  ? 
Do  they  show  a  more  devout  regard  to  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and 
do  they  give  a  more  constant  and  reverent  attendance  on  public 
worship  ?  Have  professors  of  religion  among  them  less  of  a 
worldly  spirit  ?  Are  they  less  devoted  to  fashion  and  vain  amuse- 
ments ?  Have  they  a  higher  degree  of  domestic  and  personal 
godliness?  Go  from  church  to  church,  from  house  to  house,  and 
from  closet  to  closet,  and  see  whether  you  find  more  abundant 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  more  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion  ? 


PRELACY.  549 

Now  if  neither  ministers,  nor  churches,  nor  individual  Christians 
of  the  episcopal  denomination,  however  excellent  they  may  be, 
are  found  to  be  no  more  excellent  than  those  of  other  denomi- 
nations ;  —  if  prelacy,  after  time  for  a  fair  trial,  appears  to  have 
contributed  nothing  above  other  forms  of  church  government,  to 
the  spiritual  benefit  of  ministers  or  churches,  or  private  Chris- 
tians ;  then  in  these  respects,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason,  why 
we  should  give  up  the  ecclesiastical  system  which  was  held  by 
our  Puritan  fathers,  and  which  we  think  existed  in  the  time  of 
the  apostles,  and  adopt  the  system  of  prelacy.  And  what  shall 
we  say  of  those  who  maintain,  that  the  episcopal  church  is  the 
only  true  church  of  Christ,  and  that  their  ministers  are  the  only 
ministers  who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  to  qualify  them  for 
their  office,  and  that  their  ordinances  are  the  only  ordinances 
which  can  secure  the  blessing  of  God ;  while  yet  there  is  seen 
among  them  no  degree  of  spiritual  health  or  activity,  above  what 
is  seen  among  those  whom  they  exclude  from  the  benefits  of 
church-fellowship. 

There  is,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  another  reason  against 
adopting  prelacy,  namely,  that  it  introduces  into  the  Christian 
church  a  principle  of  hurtful  tendency,  that  is,  a  distinction  in 
regard  to  office  and  rank  among  the  ministers  of  Christ.  Were 
this  distinction  of  divine  authority,  we  would  quietly  submit  to 
it,  and  confide  in  that  divine  wisdom  which  appointed  it.  But  as 
it  is  an  ordinance  of  man,  we  ought  to  inquire  whether  it  is  of 
such  a  nature  and  tendency,  as  to  justify  us  in  adopting  it.  There 
is  evidently  no  foundation  for  this  distinction  in  the  characters 
or  qualifications  of  gospel  ministers.  There  would  be  a  bishop, 
though  no  one  could  be  chosen,  who  was  superior  to  common 
presbyters.  Is  there  then  any  reason  for  the  distinction  in  the 
nature  of  the  work  to  be  done  ?  I  think  not.  For  all,  if  properly 
qualified,  are  able  to  preach  the  gospel,  administer  the  ordinances, 
and  preside  in  the  church.  And  as  to  the  work  of  ordaining ;  — 
why  is  not  a  body  of  presbyters,  as  competent  to  set  apart  others  to 
the  same  office  as  a  bishop  is  ?  Now  as  this  distinction  is  not  re- 
quired by  the  nature  of  the  work  to  be  done,  and  so  is  arbitrary ;  it 


650  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

specially  tends  to  beget  pride  and  self-complacency  in  those  who 
arc  raised  to  the  superior  rank.  Some  of  the  apostles  with  the 
meek  and  lowly  Jesus  before  their  eyes,  aspired  after  a  higher 
office,  than  others  were  to  occupy.  But  Jesus  told  them,  that 
there  was  to  be  no  such  office  in  his  kingdom ;  that  they  were  all 
brethren.  And  why  should  we  create  an  office,  which  is  suited 
to  be  an  object  of  ambition  to  aspiring  minds  ?  Why  make  a 
distmction,  which  will  be  likely  to  excite  that  unhallowed  principle 
to  a  perilous  activity  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  So  far  as  one  portion  of  the  clergy  are 
in  rank  and  power,  raised  above  the  proper  level,  the  other  part 
are  sunk  below  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  order  of 
things  in  the  episcopal  church  thrusts  the  inferior  clergy  down 
from  their  proper  station,  deprives  them  of  a  part  of  their  rights, 
and  hinders  them  from  performing  a  part  of  the  duties  incumbent 
upon  all  the  ministers  of  Christ.  According  to  the  word  of  God, 
they  are  all  rulers  in  the  Church,  iinder  Christy  the  Supreme 
Ruler.  Their  being  under  him  is  not  a  degradation,  but  an 
honor  ;  —  not  a  loss  of  rights,  but  a  matter  of  truth  and  justice, 
and  an  unspeakable  privilege.  But  for  them  to  be  subjected  to 
an  unnecessary  human  authority  is  a  loss  of  just  rights,  and  a 
hinderance  to  the  performance  of  important  duties ;  and  so  it  is 
a  degradation.  It  is  the  right  and  duty  of  every  gospel  minister, 
not  only  to  administer  baptism,  but  to  admit  persons  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  church  and  to  the  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
And  to  take  the  right  out  of  the  hands  of  common  pastors,  and 
put  it  into  the  hands  of  a  prelate,  is  as  arbitrary  and  unjust, 
as  it  would  be  to  put  the  right  of  baptizing  exclusively  into  his 
hands.  What  is  there  in  the  business  of  confirming,  as  set  forth 
in  the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  which  is  more  important  or 
more  difficult  than  baptism  ?  And  yet  while  a  presbyter  baptizes, 
he  cannot  confirm.  If  either  is  the  more  important,  surely  it  is 
baptism.  And  we  should  naturally  think  that,  if  either  of  them 
is  to  be  deemed  of  superior  importance,  and,  on  that  account,  to 
be  assigned  exclusively  to  the  bishop,  it  must  be  baptism,  which  is 
plainly  a  divine  institution,  rather  than  confirmation,  which  is  a 


PRELACY.  551 

human  institution.  And  when  I  compare  confirmation  with  the 
Lord's  Supper^  I  find  equal  reason  to  regard  the  latter  as  the 
more  solemn  and  important.  Why  then  is  an  ordinary  pastor  who 
is  allowed  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper,  forbidden  to  admin- 
ister the  rite  of  confirmation  ?  If  the  less  important  duty  is 
assigned  exclusively  to  the  bishop  ;  why  not  the  more  important  ? 
Why  is  it  not  made  the  duty  of  the  bishop,  and  of  him  only,  to 
administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  And  for  the  same 
reason,  why  should  he  not  do  all  the  preaching  too,  as  this  is 
vastly  more  important  and  difficult,  than  the  work  of  confirmation  ? 
The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
consecrating  men  to  the  office  of  ministers,  by  prayer  and  the 
imposition  of  hands ;  —  a  transaction  to  which  presbyters  are  as 
competent  as  bishops.  My  position  is,  that,  so  far  as  the  Episcopal 
system  deprives  presbyters  of  any  rights  which  naturally  pertain 
to  their  office,  and  so  far  as  it  hinders  them  from  the  performance 
of  any  ministerial  duties,  to  which  they  are  competent ;  it  de- 
grades them  in  the  public  estimation,  and,  by  an  unnecessary  and 
arbitrary  arrangement,  curtails  their  influence    and  usefulness. 

It  is  a  serious  objection  against  the  system  of  prelacy,  that  it 
hinders  the  members  of  the  church  from  performing  an  important 
part  of  their  duty  as  Christians.  We  have  seen  that  it  deprives 
them  of  all  direct  agency  in  the  discipline  of  OiTenders.  In  this 
way,  it  tends  to  prevent  them  from  feeling  the  interest  which 
they  ought  to  feel  in  the  character  and  conduct  of  each  other, 
and,  of  course,  from  exercising  the  watchful  care  over  each  other, 
which  is  required  as  a  duty.  To  induce  men  to  do  such  a  duty, 
and  to  do  it  faithfully,  it  is  important  to  make  them  feel  the  force 
of  a  direct  responsibility.  Any  sincere  Christian  will  be  likely 
to  watch  over  his  brethren  for  their  good,  to  reprove  them  when 
the  case  requires,  and  labor  for  their  amendment,  if  it  is  under- 
stood, that  this  is  a  duty  which  properly  belongs  to  him.  But 
how  can  we  expect  that  individual  Christians  will  faithfully  Avatch 
over  and  reprove  one  another,  as  required  by  the  precepts  of 
Scripture,  and  that  the  business  of  discipline  will  be  fiiithfuUy 
accomplished,  if  it  all  devolves  on  a  single  man,  and  that  man 


552  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

generally  at  a  distance,  occupied  with  other  cares,  and  not  likely 
to  be  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  persons  concerned  to  be  a 
suitable  judge  ?  There  ought  at  least  to  be  something  which 
answers  to  trial  by  jury^  which  is  deemed  so  indispensable  to  the 
security  of  individual  rights  and  the  exercise  of  justice.  Let 
every  private  member  of  the  church  be  tried  and  judged  either 
by  his  brethren  regularly  assembled  as  a  judicial  body,  or  by 
their  representatives,  chosen  and  authorized  to  act  for  them.  This 
last  is  truly  a  republican  proceeding ;  and  it  recognizes  the  prin- 
ciple, that  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  members  of  the  church 
to  attend  to  the  business  of  discipline,  although  they  choose  to  do 
it,  as  the  members  of  our  civil  communities  do,  by  or  through 
their  representatives,  to  whom  they  delegate  the  necessary  power. 
Where  the  members  of  the  church  are  possessed  of  inteUigence 
and  judgment,  qualifying  them  to  have  a  direct,  personal  agency 
in  managing  the  discipline  of  the  church,  the  eongregational  plan 
is,  in  my  opinion,  preferable,  and  more  exactly  in  accordance  with 
the  primitive  practice.  Either  the  Congregational  or  Presbyte- 
rian systems  appears  to  me  altogether  preferable  to  the  Episcopal. 
And,  if  I  mistake  not,  all  expenence  will  show,  that  wherever 
the  busuiess  of  discipline  is  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  churches, 
and  committed  to  the  hands  of  a  single  man,  who  is  to  take  care 
of  a  large  number  of  churches,  the  duty  cannot  be  faithfully 
performed. 


LECTURE    CXXIV. 


THE    LITURGY. 

My  next  reason  against  adopting  the  Episcopal  scheme  is,  that 
it  imposes  unscriptural  and  burdensome  restrictions  upon  all  the 
clergy.  The  Bible  makes  it  the  duty  of  ministers  to  offer  up 
prayer  in  public  assemblies ;  but  it  does  not  prescribe  the  form, 
of  their  prayers ;  and  it  nowhere  gives  the  right  to  do  this  to  any 
man,  or  any  body  of  men.  If  ministers  are,  in  any  good  measure, 
qualified  for  their  ofiice,  they  are  qualified  to  conduct  the  devo- 
tions of  the  church.  And  their  prayers  should  be  such  as  the 
spirit  of  piety  in  them  suggests,  and  such  as  are  suited  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  congregation.  And  why  should  they  not 
be  trusted  with  this  part  of  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  as  well 
as  other  parts  ?  Why  should  they  be  required  to  pray  in  one 
particular  form,  and  forbidden  to  vary  one  iota  from  it  ?  Who 
on  earth  has  a  right  to  tell  the  ministers  of  Christ  the  very 
thoughts  they  shall  think,  and  the  very  words  they  shall  speak 
in  their  supplications  and  confessions  and  thanksgivings  to  God 
on  every  occasion  ?  Were  it  not  for  the  influence  of  custom, 
what  gospel  minister  at  the  present  day  would  yield  this  right  to 
any  one  ?  Is  not  a  well  qualified  minister,  —  is  not  a  bishop  as  able 
to  make  a  prayer  as  others  are  to  make  it  for  him,  —  and  others 
who  lived  hundreds  of  years  ago  ?  Bishops  are,  it  is  said,  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles.,  and  stand  up  in  their  place.  And  did  the 
apostles  read  written  forms  of  prayer  ?  —  It  is  an  unwarrantable 
restriction.     And  I   cannot  but  think,  that  many  ministers  in  the 

VOL.  m.  47 


554  THE     LITURGY. 

Episcopal  church  feel  it  to  be  so.  Suppose  an  Episcopnl  priest  or 
bishop,  in  accordance  with  the  feelings  of  all  others,  Avishes  to 
make  some  uncommon  event,  not  mentioned  in  the  liturgy,  a 
subject  of  public  prayer.  But  he  must  not  do  it.  His  prayer 
is  in  his  book,  and  he  must  read  it  just  as  it  is,  —  how  much 
soever  he  may  desire  to  pray,  and  how  much  soever  others 
may  desire  that  he  would  pray,  in  a  different  manner.  Again. 
Suppose  a  scene  occurs,  such  as  has  frequently  occurred,  and 
such  as  we  hope  will  occur  still  more  frequently  ;  —  suppose  that 
he  who  is  ministering  in  the  sanctuary,  sees  evident  signs  of 
awakened  and  solemn  attention,  deep  anxiety,  and  tenderness  of 
heart  through  the  assembly  before  him,  and  he  w^ell  knows  that 
many  are  ready  to  ask,  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved,  and  his  own 
heart  is  full  of  love  for  lost  souls,  and  strong  desires  for  their 
salvation,  and  he  longs  to  cry  to  God  in  their  behalf  in  a  man- 
ner adapted  to  their  state,  and  to  his  own  devout  emotions. 
What  shall  he  do  ?  Why,  he  can  only  read  a  prayer,  written 
many  hundreds  of  years  ago  —  a  prayer  good  for  some  other 
occasions,  but  not  for  this.  Now,  were  I  an  Episcopal  minister,  I 
do  not  say,  were  I  a  bishop,  but  were  I  a  minister  of  the  lowest 
rank,  and  found  myself  in  such  circumstances,  I  would  instantly 
forget  that  I  was  under  authority  to  any  one,  but  to  my  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  —  I  would  cast  off  my  bondage,  and  would 
offer  up  prayer  to  God,  according  to  the  impulses  of  my  own 
heart. 

Reading  public  prayers  from  a  book  may  be  advisable  and 
useful,  when  ministers  have  but  little  cultivation  of  mind  and  are 
very  imperfectly  prepared  for  their  office.  But  if  ministers  are 
possessed  of  the  requisite  qualifications,  what  human  being  has  a 
rightful  authority  to  dictate  to  them  how  they  shall  pray  ?  and 
how  can  they  submit  to  such  dictation,  from  whomsoever  it  may 
come  ?  I  know  not  how  it  is  in  this  country  ;  but  in  the  church 
of  England,  when  any  new  and  remarkable  event  takes  place, 
suitable  to  be  mentioned  in  public  prayer ;  all  the  clergy,  and  all 
the  bishops  too,  are  silent,  cill  the  archI)ishop  composes  and  pub- 
lishes a  prayer  for  them  to  read.     Now  what  apostle  ever  under- 


THE     LITURGY.  555 

took  anything  like  this  ?  It  is  a  palpable  innovation  upon  apos- 
tolical and  primitive  practice  ;  —  a  gross  infringement  of  the  liberty 
and  the  duty  of  the  ambassadors  of  Christ. 

"  The  Uturgy  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  chargeable  with  un- 
necessarily repeating  the  same  petitions,  and  with  joining  together 
those  which  have  no  kind  of  connection."  Another  objection, 
is  the  sliortness  of  the  prayers.  "  The  longest  are  ended 
almost  before  you  have  time  to  bring  your  mind  into  a  proper 
frame  for  joining  in  it ;  and  some  of  them,  are  finished  almost  as 
soon  as  they  are  begun.  Besides  the  constant  interruption  which 
is  thus  given  to  devotional  feelings,  there  is  a  want  of  dignity  and 
of  sense  in  a  collection  of  what  may  be  called  shreds  ov  fragments 
of  prayers.  The  Lord's  prayer  is  sometimes  introduced  where 
no  person  can  perceive  any  reason  for  using  it,  and  is  brought 
forward  so  often  in  the  course  of  the  same  service,  as  to  have  the 
appearance  of  vain  repetition." 

As  I  have  undertaken  to  inquire  a  little  into  the  reason  of 
things,  I  would  ask  why  the  Episcopal  church,  which  prescribes 
•prayers  for  ministers,  does  not  also  prescribe  their  sermons  ?  It 
may  be  said,  that  this  was  in  some  sort  actually  done ;  that  two 
volumes  of  homilies  were  early  written  and  pubhshed,  and  or- 
dered to  be  read  by  the  clergy  in  the  church.  I  suppose  how- 
ever that  even  then,  those  ministers  who  were  competent  to  write 
edifying  discourses,  had  liberty  to  do  it.  This  was  all  well.  And 
those  who  were  competent  to  make  edifying  prayers,  should  have 
had  liberty  to  do  this  also.  But  why  is  not  the  use  of  homilies 
continued,  as  much  as  the  use  of  written  prayers  ?  You  may 
say,  that  ministers  now  are  well  educated,  and  are  qualified  to 
make  their  own  sermons.  And  are  they  not  also  qualified  to 
make  their  own  prayers  ?  Who  can  see  any  reason  for  the  dif- 
ference ?  If  the  Episcopal  church  prescribes  the  whole  course  of 
public  devotions,  it  should,  to  be  consistent,  prescribe  the  whole 
course  of  public  instructions,  and  bishops,  as  well  as  the  inferior 
clerg}^,  should  use  a  book  of  homilies,  as  they  now  use  the  book 
of  common  prayer.  If  it  is  said,  that  old  homihes,  though  very 
edifying   and    acceptable    when  they   were  composed,   are    not 


5S6  THE    LITURGY. 

adapted  to  a  modern  assembly,  —  (which  is  verily  the  case)  ; 
then  why  do  not  the  bishops,  or  an  archbishop,  write  and  publish 
new  homilies  ? 

The  Episcopal  church  "  suspends  the  order  for  the  reading  of 
the  homilies  in  churches,  until  a  revision  of  them  may  be  con- 
veniently made  for  the  clearing  of  them  from  obsolete  words  and 
phrases,  and  from  the  local  references."  Now  if  the  reading  of 
homilies  is  suspended,  because  they  need  revision  ;  I  should  sup- 
pose the  same  would  be  done  with  the  book  of  common  prayer. 
The  reasons  for  this  are  the  same  in  kind,  though  not  equal  in 
■degree.  A  revision  of  the  prayers  is  demanded  for  "  clearing 
them  of  obsolete  words  and  phrases,"  as  is  said  in  the  other 
case.  They  have  already  cleared  them  of  "  local  references." 
Why  not  do  more  ?  Why  should  it  retain  anything  which,  by 
common  consent,  is  laid  aside  as  unsuitable  ?  I  refer  now  to 
what  is  called  "  the  Churching  of  Women  ;"  which  has  gone  into 
general  disuse.  It  may  be  said,  the  service  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  discretion  of  the  minister,  and  to  the  option  of  women.  But 
so  it  is,  that  their  option  is  against  the  service.  And  so  it  is  likely 
to  be  ;  and  so  I  think  it  ought  to  be.  Why  then  is  an  obsolete 
ceremony  still  prescribed  ? 

As  to  the  general  current  of  thought  and  sentiment  contained 
in  the  book  of  common  prayer,  —  I  would  treat  it  with  the  sin- 
cerest  veneration,  not  because  the  form  in  which  it  is  presented 
is  derived  from  the  fathers  of  the  church  of  England,  or  from 
the  Christian  fathers  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church ;  but  be- 
cause it  is  Scriptural,  and  suited  to  promote  evangelical  piety. 
I  rejoice  in  the  thought,  that  it  has,  through  the  blessing  of  God, 
been  the  means  of  aiding  the  devotions  of  an  innumerable  mul- 
titude of  believers,  and  training  them  up  for  the  worship  of  heaven. 
And  I  am  confident  that  ministers  and  Christians  of  all  denomi- 
nations may  be  benefited  by  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  it. 
But  I  object  to  the  constant  and  exclusive  use  of  any  prescribed 
forms  of  prayer,  however  excellent. 

Man  is  so  constituted,  that  he  craves  variety ;  and  you  can- 
not  deprive  him  of  it,  and    confine   him,  without  any  obvious 


THE    LITURGY.  557 

reason,  to  one  invariable  course,  even  in  religious  duties,  without 
doing  violence  to  the  principles  of  his  intellectual  and  moral  na- 
ture. Look  now  at  the  manner  of  introducing  public  worship. 
At  the  commencement  of  every  morning  and  every  evening  ser- 
vice, the  minister  must  say :  "  Dearly  beloved  brethren,  the 
Scripture  moveth  us  in  sundry  places  to  acknowledge  and  confess 
our  manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  etc."  Now  this  introduc- 
tory address,  which  is  of  some  length,  is  all  true  and  im- 
portant ;  and,  whenever  a  congregation  need  to  be  informed, 
that  confession  of  sin  is  required  by  tiie  word  of  God,  it  is 
proper  and  useful.  But  after  the  people  have  been  frequently  and 
fully  instructed  on  this  point,  why  take  up  their  time  with  a  con- 
stant and  needless  repetition,  which  is  almost  sure  to  become  a 
dull  formality  ?  Instead  of  reiterating  continually,  and  in  the 
same  words,  that  the  Scripture  moveth  us  to  confession,  why  not 
proceed  at  once  to  make  confession  ?  When  Christians  meet 
together  for  the  express  purpose  of  prayer,  there  is  surely  no 
occasion  for  them  to  be  always  told  before  they  engage  in  prayer, 
that  the  Scripture  moveth  them  to  pray.  And  if  you  say,  it  is 
proper  for  them  to  be  continually  reminded  of  it,  you  might  as 
well  say,  that  the  people  should  be  continually  reminded  of  their 
duty  to  receive  instruction  ;  and  that  when  we  come  to  the  ser- 
mon, it  is  proper  for  us  always  to  repeat  exactly  the  same  form 
before  we  begin,  and  say,  that  "  the  Scripture  in  sundry  places 
moveth  us  to"  this  service,  that  is,  ministers  to  preach,  and  the 
people  to  hear.  And  I  cannot  but  think  that,  although  ministers 
quietly  submit  to  use  this  invariable  introductory  address  out  of 
respect  to  Episcopal  authority,  they  would  after  all,  choose  to  be 
left  at  liberty  to  introduce  the  service  as  their  own  good  taste  and 
judgment  should  dictate. 

See  too  how  remarkably  particular  are  the  directions  given  to 
ministers  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  conducting  the  public  ser- 
vice, —  directing  them  just  what  they  shall  say  before  they  begin 
and  after  they  close  the  reading  of  the  lesson.  "  Before  every 
lesson,  the  minister  shall  say,  here  beginneth  such  a  chapter,  or 
verse  of  such  a  chapter,  of  such  a  book  :  and  after  every  lesson, 

47* 


558  THE    LITURGY. 

here  endeth  the  first,  or  the  second  lesson."  It  is  indeed  proper 
that  the  minister  should  inform  the  congregation  what  portion  of 
Scripture  is  to  be  read,  as  ministers  of  all  denominations  are  ac- 
customed to  do.  But  why  is  it  necessary  to  prescribe  the  par- 
ticular manner,  in  which  this  information  shall  be  given  ?  In  the 
Episcopal  service,  the  whole  congregation,  several  times  repeat  the 
,  Lord's  prayer  with  the  minister,  and  they  all  join  in  saying  other 
prayers  after  the  minister,  as  little  children  say  prayers  or  hymns 
after  their  parents.  Now  everything  of  this  kind  appears  to  me 
to  be  a  real  hinderance  to  devotion,  and  a  disorder  and  confusion 
inconsistent  with  the  solerainity  and  stillness  which  ought  to  per- 
vade a  religious  assembly.  And  it  seems  to  me,  if  Paul  were 
here,  he  would  reprove  it,  —  as  he  reproved  the  confusion  in  the 
Corinthian  church  which  was  occasioned  by  several  persons  speak- 
ing together.  What  I  have  now  noticed,  and  also  the  very  fre- 
quent changes  of  posture  in  the  assembly,  must,  I  think,  appear 
strange  and  unbecoming  to  any  one,  who  has  not  been  reconciled 
to  them  by  long  use. 

The  order  of  service  in  the  Episcopal  church  extends  through 
the  whole  year,  and  is  exceedingly  particular.  There  is  a  spe- 
cial service  for  the  first,  second,  third  and  fourth  Sundays  in 
advent,  then  for  Christmas,  and  the  first  Sunday  after  Christmas ; 
then  for  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  then  for  the  epiphany,  then 
for  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth,  fith,  and  sixth  Sundays  after 
epiphany ;  then  for  the  third  Sunday  before  lent,  then  for  the 
second,  and  the  first ;  then  for  each  Sunday  during  the  forty  days 
of  fasting  in  lent ;  then  for  good  Friday,  —  easter,  —  and  the 
five  Sundays  after  easter ;  then  the  ascension  day ;  then  pente- 
cost ;  then  Trinity  Sunday,  and  each  of  the  twenty-five  Sundays 
after  Trinity  ;  then  St.  Andrew's  day,  St.  Thomas's  day,  etc. 
then  all  saints  day.  Now  my  curiosity  leads  me  to  inquire,  what 
is  the  reason  of  all  this  ?  Why  was  such  a  particular  and  uniform 
arrangement  made  ?  Neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  give  any 
instructions  favorable  to  it.  And  if  it  is  considered  in  the  light 
of  expediency,  I  inquire,  whether  imposing  one  and  the  same 
course  for  each  and  every  year  tends  to  spiritual  improvement, 


THE    LITURGY.  559 

and  whether  it  has  resulted  in  intellectual  and  moral  attainments 
above  those  which  have  been  found  under  other  forms  of  public 
worship. 

I  have  one  more  question,  namely ;  whether  the  above  men- 
tioned assignment  for  each  Sunday  is  founded  on  any  obvious  rea- 
sons, and  whether  the  services  assigned  to  each  Sunday  are  in 
general  any  better  adapted  to  that  Sunday,  than  to  some  other. 
For  example  ;  is  the  short  prayer  provided  for  the  sixteenth  or 
seventeenth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  any  more  adapted  to  that  Sun- 
day, than  to  the  eighteenth  or  nineteenth  ?  The  prayer  for  the 
seventeenth  is  this :  "  Lord,  we  pray  thee,  that  thy  grace  may 
always  prevent  and  follow  us,  and  make  us  continually  to  be  given 
to  all  good  works,  through  Jesus  Christ."  Now  is  there  any  rea- 
son for  assigning  this  prayer  to  the  seventeenth  rather  than  to  the 
eighteenth,  for  which  the  following  prayer  is  provided  :  "  Lord, 
we  beseech  thee,  grant  thy  people  grace  to  withstand  the  tempta- 
tions of  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  and  with  pure  hearts 
and  minds  to  follow  thee,  the  only  God,  through  Jesus  Christ." 
No  reason  appears.  While  then  the  service  provided  for  some 
occasions  has  an  evident  adaptedness  to  those  occasions ;  the 
arrangement  in  other  cases  is  altogether  arbitrary.  Now,  if  it  is 
expedient  to  require  ministers  and  churches  to  conform  to  a  par- 
ticular arrangement  of  pubUc  services  when  there  is  an  obvious 
reason  for  it ;  is  it  expedient,  when  there  is  no  reason  ? 

But  I  must  now  state  a  more  serious  objection  against  the  lit- 
urgy, namely,  that  it  contains  some  passages  which  are  highly 
exceptionable.  And  no  one  will  say,  that  its  general  excellence 
can  justify  its  errors.  The  Episcopal  church  has  the  power  to 
make  alterations  in  the  liturgy.  They  have  actually  made  altera- 
tions. And  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  making  more, 
if  they  judge  best.  Must  we  not  then  consider  whatever  is  found 
in  the  liturgy,  to  be  a  true  expression  of  the  belief  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  church  in  America  ? 

I  now  refer  to  the  false  doctrine  contained  in  the  baptismal  ser- 
vice. After  the  child  is  baptized,  the  minister  says :  "  Seeing 
now  that  the  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 


560  THE    LITURGY. 

Christ,  let  us  give  thanks  to  Almighty  God  for  these  benefits." 
Then  follows  the  Thanksgiving :  "  We  give  thee  hearty  thanks, 
most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this 
infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  hy 
adoption,  and  to  ingraft  him  into  thy  holy  church.^''  Now  if  it 
were  a  fact,  that  every  baptized  child  is  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  made  God's  own  child  by  adoption,  it  would  be  a  duty 
to  acknowledge  it  with  gratitude.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of 
the  fact,  either  from  Scripture,  observation,  or  experiopce.  And 
when  those  Episcopal  ministers,  (and  there  are  many  such,)  who 
cordially  receive  the  teachings  of  Holy  Writ  as  to  the  native  cor- 
ruption of  man  and  the  necessity  of  a  spiritual  regeneration,  go 
through  with  the  baptismal  service,  and  say,  that  the  baptized 
child  is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  they  do  not  beheve  what 
the  words  natui-ally  express.  For  when  the  baptized  child  comes 
to  years  of  understanding,  they  do  not  tell  him  that  he  has  already 
been  born  again  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  but  they  urge  upon  him,  just 
as  all  evangelical  ministers  do,  the  important  doctrine,  that  he 
must  experience  this  spiritual  renovation  in  order  to  prepare  him 
for  heaven,  and  that  it  is  unsafe  to  place  any  reliance  upon  the 
circumstance  of  his  having  been  baptized.  And  yet  those  minis- 
ters are  obliged  to  say,  in  so  many  words,  that  the  baptized  child 
is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  received  as  God's  own 
child  by  adoption,  and  incorporated  into  God's  holy  church  ;  — 
language  which  expresses  the  idea  of  a  saving  change  both  of 
character  and  state,  as  clearly  as  any  language  can  do  it.  Such 
ministers  must,  I  think,  regret  the  necessity  of  saying  this  :  be- 
cause the  language  does  plainly  express  a  sentiment  which  is  not 
theirs  ;  and  they  must  have  found  by  experience,  that  the  practice 
of  using  words  in  this  manner  cannot,  without  some  painful  strug- 
gles, be  made  to  sit  quietly  upon  an  enlightened  and  upright  mind. 
Those,  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  according 
to  the  plain,  literal  meaning  of  the  language  employed  in  the  ser- 
vice, believe  that  regenerating  grace,  or  more  exactly,  regenera- 
tion hy  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  new  birth,  is  conveyed  to  the  child, 
through  the  efficacy  of  baptism.     The  moment  before  baptism  the 


THE    LITURGY.  561 

child  is  unrcgenerate  ;  the  moment  after,  he  is  regenerate.  Ac- 
cordingly it  is  during  the  few  moments  occupied  in  baptism,  that 
the  child  is  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  received  as 
God's  own  child  by  adoption,  and  incorporated  into  God's  holy 
church."  In  this  transaction,  a  great  change  is  accomplished,  the 
very  change  which  Jesus  declared  to  be  necessary  for  every 
human  being,  —  a  change  from  a  state  of  sin  to  a  state  of  holi- 
ness. But  if  such  a  momentous  and  instantaneous  change  as  this 
is  really  produced  by  baptism,  or  during  the  time  of  baptism ;  it 
is  certainly  reasonable  to  expect  some  evidences  of  it.  Do  any 
such  evidences  appear  ?  Does  not  the  baptized  child  exhibit  the 
same  moral  qualities  as  children  who  are  not  baptized  ?  When  he 
comes  to  years  of  understanding,  does  he  not  after  all  show  that 
he  needs  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  much  as  though 
he  had  not  been  regenerated  by  baptism  ?  As  baptized  children 
grow  up,  do  not  most  of  them  show,  that  they  are  not  children  of 
God  by  adoption  ?  And  when  they  are  awakened  to  considera- 
tion, and  convinced  of  sin,  do  they  not  know  and  feel,  the  ineflBcacy 
of  all  outward  rites,  and  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?  And  what  gospel  minister  would  tell  them,  that  they  had 
already  been  regenerated,  and  that  their  anxiety  on  that  subject 
was  needless  ? 

Bishop  Hobart  says,  "  that  there  is  a  distinction  made  in  the 
language  of  the  Episcopal  church  as  well  as  in  Scripture,  between 
regeneration  and  renovation.''^  And  he  maintains  "  that  unless 
the  baptized  person  is  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  baptismal 
regeneration  will  only  increase  his  guilt."  It  comes  to  this,  that 
the  baptized  person  is  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  but  not 
*^  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  although  he  is  already 
"  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  it  will  profit  him  nothing, 
unless  he  is  "  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  author  does  not 
undertake  to  tell  us  what  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regenera- 
tion is,  and  how  it  differs  from  the  work  of  the  same  Spirit  in 
renovation.  We  had  supposed  that  whatever  might  be  the  case 
B3  to  the  influence  of  outward  rites,  the  work  of  the  Holg  Spirit 
IB  inward,  and  influences  the  affections.     But  he  holds  to  an  im- 


662  THE    LITURGY. 

portant  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration,  which  does  not 
touch  the  inward  affections  ;  although  in  another  part  of  the  ser- 
vice, the  child  is  spoken  of  as  receiving  "  forgiveness  of  sin  by 
this  spiritual  regeneration^  The  bishop  maintains  baptismal 
regeneration  "  in  this  sense,  that  the  baptized  person  is  horn  again, 
not  in  the  affections  of  his  soul,  but  into  a  neiv  state,  etc."  He  is 
regenerated  or  "  born  again,"  and  that  too  bg  the  Holg  Spirit,  but 
is  not  regenerated  "  in  the  affections  of  his  soul."  And  the  "  new 
state  "  into  which  he  is  brought,  when  in  baptism  he  is  regenerated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  a  new  spiritual  state,  —  it  does  not  per- 
tain to  his  inward  affections ;  and  of  course  it  must  be  a  new  out- 
ward state.  The  bishop  says,  the  baptized  person  is  born  again 
"  into  a  new  state,  in  which  he  receives  conditionallg  a  title  to  the 
blessings  of  the  gospel  covenant."  "  Receives  conditionallg."  But 
the  baptismal  service  does  not  hint  at  anything  conditional.  It 
declares  directly,  that  the  baptized  child  is  "  regenerated  hg  the 
Holg  Spirit,  and  received  as  Grod^s  own  child  hg  adoption,  and 
incorporated  into  God's  holy  church."  Are  not  these  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel  covenant  ?  The  Episcopal  minister  renders 
thanks  to  God  that  all  these  blessings  are  actually  bestowed  upon 
the  baptized  child.  And  he  does  the  same  in  regard  to  the  bap- 
tized adult ;  and  the  service  for  adults,  in  several  parts,  implies, 
that  the  baptized  person,  before  baptism,  is  unregenerate,  and  that 
in  or  by  the  act  of  baptism,  he  is  born  again  not  only  of  water, 
but  also  of  the  Spirit.  The  minister  does  not  say,  "  We  yield 
thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee 
conditionallg  to  give  to  tins  child  a  title  to  be  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  to  be  received  as  thine  own  child  by  adoption, 
and  to  be  incorporated  into  thy  holy  church."  He  does  not  thus 
thank  God  for  giving  the  child  a  conditional  title  to  these  gospel 
blessings ;  but  he  thanks  God  that  he  has  already,  in  the  rite  of 
baptism,  actually  bestowed  them.  Accordingly,  I  find  no  small 
difficulty  in  making  the  bishop's  explanation  of  the  baptismal  ser- 
vice, agree  with  the  language  of  the  service.  The  one  says,  "  a 
conditional  title  to  gospel  blessings  "  is  received  in  baptism  ;  the 
other  says,  the  hlessings  themselves  are  received.     And  the  church 


THE    LITURGY.  563 

catechism  also  says,  that  the  persons  baptized,  "  being  by  nature 
born  in  sin,  and  children  of  wrath,  are  hereby,"  (i.  e.  by  baptism) 
"made  the  children  of  grace." 

It  would  gratify  my  feelings  to  know  precisely  what  is  meant  in 
the  above  quotation  by  "  the  baptized  person  receiving  condition- 
ally a  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  covenant."  The  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  and  sanctify  the  heart  is  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures  as  one  of  the  special  blessings  of  the  gospel  cove- 
nant. Another  of  these  blessings  is  set  forth  in  that  gracious 
promise  of  God,  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons 
and  daughters."  These  are  the  principal  blessings  of  the  new 
covenant.  The  baptized  child  receives  a  conditional  title  to  these 
blessings.  A  conditional  title,  is  a  title  depending  on  certain  con- 
ditions. What  are  tlje  conditions  in  this  case  ?  The  conditions 
cannot  be  the  application  of  water  to  the  child  and  solemnly  pro- 
nouncing over  him  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  it  is  in  or  by  this  baptismal  service,  that  he 
receives  the  conditional  title,  —  the  conditions  being  still  to  he  ful- 
filled. What  then  are  the  conditions  ?  And  by  whom  are  they 
to  be  performed  ?  It  appeal's  from  the  baptismal  service,  that  the 
conditions  are  to  be  performed  for  a  time,  by  the  sponsors,  that  is, 
the  parents  or  other  persons,  who  present  the  child  for  baptism, 
and  enter  into  solemn  engagements  for  him.  The  minister,  after 
referring  to  the  promise  of  Christ,  says  to  the  sponsors :  "  This 
infant  must  also  —  for  his  part,  promise  by  you  that  are  his  sure- 
ties (until  he  come  of  age  to  take  it  upon  himself,)  that  he  will 
renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  and  constantly  beheve  God's 
holy  word,  and  obediently  keep  his  commandments."  He  then 
puts  the  particular  questions  to  each  one  of  the  sureties  and 
receives  the  answers.  "  Dost  thou,  in  the  name  of  this  child, 
renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of 
the  world,  with  all  covetous  desires  of  the  same,  and  all  sinful  de- 
sires of  the  flesh  —  ?  "  Answer.  "  I  renounce  them  all ;  and  will 
endeavor  by  God's  help,  not  to  follow  them  —  ."  "  Dost  thou 
believe  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  contained  in  the 
apostles'  creed  ?  "     Ans.     "  I  do."     "  Wilt  thou  be  baptized  into 


564  THE    LITURGY. 

this  faith  ?  "  Ans.  "  That  is  my  desire."  "  Wilt  thou  then  obe- 
dientlj  keep  all  God's  commandments,  and  walk  in  them  all  the 
days  of  thy  life  ? "  Ans.  "  I  will,  by  God's  help."  In  these 
promises,  the  sureties,  severally,  personate  the  infant ;  they  speak 
in  his  name,  and  enter  into  engagements  for  him.  Now  there  are 
some  things  in  this  transaction  which  a  plain  Puritan  finds  it 
rather  hard  to  understand.  Are  the  sureties  responsible  for  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promises  they  make  ?  Or,  as  they  speak  in  the 
name  of  the  child,  does  the  responsibility  rest  on  Mm  ?  It  seems 
from  the  transaction,  that  they  become  responsible,  till  the  child 
comes  of  age.  If  so,  then  in  what  way  are  they  to  fulfil  their 
promises,  that  is,  in  what  way  is  each  of  them  to  renounce  the 
devil  and  his  works,  and  to  believe  and  obey  God's  word  for  the 
child  during  his  infancy  ?  Is  the  faith  anc^  obedience  to  be  exer- 
cised by  the  sureties,  or  by  the  child  9  If  the  sureties  do  them- 
selves, in  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  truly  believe  and 
obey,  is  that  a  fulfilment  of  the  promise  they  make  in  the  name  of 
title  child  ?  If  not,  then  what  more  shall  they  do,  seeing  they 
cannot  so  identify  themselves  with  the  mind  of  the  child,  that  their 
act  in  believing  and  obeying  shall  become  his  own  personal  act  ? 
But  if,  whatever  may  seem  to  be  impHed  in  the  promise,  the  spon- 
sors are  not  really  responsible  for  the  child's  faith  and  obedience 
during  his  infancy,  and  if,  as  is  plainly  signified,  the  child  is  not 
responsible,  until  he  grows  up ;  then  where  does  the  responsibility 
lie  for  the  fulfilment,  during  the  child's  infancy,  of  the  promise 
made  by  the  sureties  ?  After  the  child  is  of  suflScient  age,  he  of 
course  takes  the  responsibility  upon  himself. 

If  the  real  import  of  the  promise  which  the  sponsors  make,  is 
meant  to  be  this,  —  that  they  will  take  care,  as  far  as  possible, 
that  the  child  shall  receive  a  religious  education  ;  that  he  shall  be 
restrained  from  vice,  and  be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord  ;  then  why  should  not  the  language  of  the 
promise  be  such  as  clearly  to  convey  this  meaning  ?  Why  should 
a  transaction  made  up  of  mysteries,  —  an  cenigma  cenigmatorum, 
more  puzzhng  than  Samson's  riddle,  be  used  to  set  forth,  or  rather 
to  cover  up  so  plain  a  matter  ?  —  an  enigma  too,  the  explanation 
of  which  is  another  and  a  still  darker  eni";ma. 


THE    LITURGY.  565 

So  far  as  the  sponsors  arc  concerned,  the  condition  of  the 
child's  title  to  gospel  blessings  must  be  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promises  thej  make  in  behalf  of  the  child.  And  these  promises 
you  will  understand  as  Avell  as  you  can.  But  what  are  the  condi- 
tions which  relate  to  the  child  himself  ?  On  what  conditions,  to 
be  performed  by  Mm,  does  his  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
covenant  rest  ?  The  gospel  itself  represents  these  conditions  to 
be,  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  child,  then,  in  baptism,  receives  a  title  to  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel  covenant,  on  condition  that,  in  due  time,  he 
shall  repent  and  believe.  But  are  not  these  very  blessings 
offered  to  all,  whether  baptized  or  not,  on  these  same  conditions  ? 
And  does  not  every  faithful  minister,  whether  Episcopal  or  not, 
declare  to  all  men,  that  all  spiritual  blessings  will  be  theirs,  if 
they  will  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  ?  If  then  this  conditional 
title  is  common  to  all  who  live  under  the  gospel  dispensation ;  how 
is  it  received  in  baptism  ? 

Episcopalians  have,  in  some  instances,  provided  a  second  form 
of  the  service,  to  be  used  by  any  who  shall  prefer  it.  This  is  the 
case  in  the  ordination  service.  The  bishop  is  to  repeat  the  first 
form,  or  another  which  follows  it.  The  same  choice  between  two 
modes  of  proceeding  is  provided  as  to  the  sign  of  the  cross  in 
baptism,  and  as  to  the  mode  of  applying  the  water,  and  as  to 
repeating  a  part  of  the  apostles'  creed.  Now  such  a  provision 
appears  to  me  much  more  important  in  this  case,  than  in  either  of 
the  other  cases  referred  to.  And  I  have  often  been  inclined  to 
ask,  why  Episcopalians  have  not  exercised  their  authority  and 
their  charity,  and  provided  a  second  form  of  the  baptismal  ser- 
vice, in  which  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
baptism,  should  be  omitted,  so  that  ministers  of  different  views 
might  be  freed  from  a  heavy  burden,  and  be  at  liberty  to  act 
according  to  their  honest  convictions. 

Again.  The  \it\irgy  presents  a  low  and  unscriptural  standard 
of  the  Christian  character.  Those  doubtless  are  regarded  as 
true  believers  and  heirs  of  eternal  life,  who  are  confirmed  by  the 
bishop,  and  received  to  the  communion  of  the  Supper,  and  who  are 

VOL.  III.  48 


566  THE    LITURGY. 

spoken  of  as  Christians  in  the  funeral  service.  As  to  the  last, 
although  the  liturgy  has  heen  improved  by  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church  in  America,  it  still  plainly  implies,  that  the  person 
deceased,  whether  pious  or  not,  was  a  Christian,  and  died  in  the 
Lord.  And  there  is  no  way  to  avoid  this  conclusion,  but  by  an 
unnatural  explanation,  or  rather  an  evasion,  of  the  import  of  the 
language.  The  service  is  exceedingly  solemn  and  impressive,  and 
is  remarkably  appropriate  to  the  funeral  of  a  devout  Christian. 
But  if  used  at  the  burial  of  a  person  who  was  evidently  destitute 
of  the  Christian  character,  as  it  so  frequently  is ;  it  conveys  the 
false  and  dangerous  sentiment,  that  a  hfe  of  ungodliness  is  not 
incompatible  with  a  title  to  heaven  ;  and  in  this  way  it  directly 
tends  to  confirm  the  irreligious  in  their  irreligious  life.  And  I 
cannot  but  notice  the  manifest  inconsistency,  not  to  say  absurdity, 
of  attempting  to  frame  a  single  service,  which  shall  be  suited  to 
the  burial  of  the  most  eminent  servants  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same 
time  suited  to  the  burial  of  the  worldly  and  profane.  The  ser- 
vice is  indeed  "  not  to  be  used  for  any  unbaptized  adults,  or  any 
who  die  excommunicate,  or  who  have  laid  violent  hands  upon 
themselves."  These  are  the  only  exceptions.  It  may  be  used 
for  baptized  inebriates,  or  infidels.  There  are  many  persons, 
who,  for  some  cause,  have  not  been  baptized,  who  yet  have 
exhibited,  in  life  and  in  death,  the  character  of  exemplary  Chris- 
tians. To  these.  Christian  burial  is,  according  to  the  rubric,  to  be 
denied. 

An  unscriptural  standard  of  Christian  character  is  also  held 
forth  in  the  "  Order  of  confirmation."  In  the  first  place,  the 
minister  says  to  the  sureties  for  the  baptized  child  :  "  Ye  are  to 
take  care  that  this  child  be  brought  to  the  bishop  to  be  confirmed 
by  him,  as  soon  as  he  can  say  the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and 
the  ten  commandments,  and  is  sxfficientlt/  instructed  m  the  other 
parts  of  the  church  catechism  set  for  that  purpose.''''  The  same 
qualifications  are  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  the  "  Order  of 
Confirmation."  These  are  the  qualifications  required  in  order  to 
confirmation,  and  in  order  to  communion  with  the  church  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.     There  is  in   this  a   manifest  deficiency,  which 


THE    LITURGY.  567 

comes  continually,  with  all  its  deceptive  influence,  before  the 
minds  of  those  who  attend  the  service  of  confirmation  in  the  Epis- 
copal church. 

It  is,  with  me,  a  grave  objection  to  the  Episcopal  church,  that  it 
retains  so  many  of  the  additions  which  were  made  to  the  simple 
institutions  of  the  gospel  by  the  superstition  of  the  church  of  Itome. 
The  corruption  of  Christianity  by  human  inventions  began  even  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles.     And  these  inventions,  whether  recom- 
mended by  their  novelty,  or  rendered  venerable  by  their  antiquity^ 
the  apostles  repeatedly  condemned.     And  they  foretold,  that  still 
greater  corruptions  would  be  brought  into  the  church  after  their 
decease.     The  Christian  fathers,  during  the  three  or  four  centu- 
ries after  Christ,  laid  the  foundation  of  the   church  of  Rome. 
That  church,  during  the  period  of  its  greatest  power  and  corrup- 
tion, constantly  appealed  to  the  fathers  ;  and  the  appeal  was  not  in 
vain.     If  the  fathers,  during  the  first  four  or  five  centuries,  are 
allowed  to  possess  decisive  authority  in  regard  to  opinions,  rites, 
and  ceremonies ;  the  peculiarities  of  the  Romish  church  can,  for 
the  most  part,  be  vindicated  and  sustained.     Many  of  the  best 
writers  in  the  church  of  England,  and  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  America,  disclaim  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  and  hold 
to  the  Scriptures  as  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice.    And  yet  Episcopalians  at  this  day  retain  a  great  propor- 
tion of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  popery  ;  —  not  so  much,  I 
suppose,   because    they   belonged    to    popery,    as   because   they 
have  so  long  been  practised  in  their  own  church.     Some  indeed 
consider  it  as  a  conclusive  argument  in  their  defence,  that  they 
were  in  use  during  the  first  ages  of  Christianity.     A  late  re- 
spectable writer  in  favor  of  prelacy  says,  "  that  the  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  is,  the  defer- 
ence it  pays  to  the  primitive  church ;  that  it  is  the  principle  con- 
stantly maintained  by  that  church,  that  tvhatever  is  first  is  true, 
and  whatever  is  later  is  false."     On  this  ground,  many  Episcopa- 
lians contend  for  those  ceremonial  observances,  which  have  been 
added  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel. 

]S'o\v  I  do  not  admit  that  ancient  fathers  had  any  more  authority 


568  THE    LITURGY. 

to  make  additions  to  the  divine  institutions,  than  modern  fathers. 
Why  should  we  pay   deference   to  uninspired  men  in  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  more  than   those   in  the   seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  ;  —  or,  to  the  fathers  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  England,  more  than  to  the  fathers  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  Scotland,  or  to  the  fathers  of  the  puritan  church  in  New  Eng- 
land ?     The  opinions  of  uninspired  men  cannot  bind  us.     We  are 
Protestants.     And  it  seems  to  me,  that  Episcopalians,  professing 
as  they  do  to  be  Protestants,  act  inconsistently  with  their  profes- 
sion in  paying  so  much  regard   to  antiquity,  and  especially  in 
retaining  so  many  of  the  peculiar  forms  and  observances  of  the 
Romish  church.     And  I  think  too,  that  the  Episcopal  church  is 
inconsistent  with   itself,  in  that  it  adopts  some  of  the  ancient 
observances,  while  it  rejects  others.     The  holy  days  kept  in  honor 
of  the  Trinity,  of  angels,  of  the  birth  and  circumcision  of  Christ, 
of  the  virgin  Mary,  of  the  apostles,  of  several  martyrs  and  Chris- 
tian fathers,  etc.,  were  all  at  first  innovations  ;  but  they  became 
settled  usages  in  the  ancient  church.     The  founders  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church,  by  taking  some  of  these,  and  omitting 
others,  showed  that  they  had  no  imphcit  confidence  in  antiquity, 
and  that  they  claimed  the  right  of  judging  and  acting  for  them- 
selves.    When  they  pleased,  they  adopted  an  observance  which 
originated  in  the  bosom  of  popery  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and 
rejected  one  which  was  generally  observed  in  the  third  century. 
Now  are  not  those,  who  profess  such  deference  to  ecclesiastical 
antiquity,  while  after  all  they  are  not  governed  by  it,  chargeable 
with  some  inconsistency  ?     Does  their  deference  really  amount  to 
any  more  than  this,  that  they  will  follow  the  ancients  or  not,  as 
they  judge  best  ?     If  they  profess  more  than  this,  their  practice 
falls  short  of  their  profession.      If  then   modern  Episcopalians 
charge    us   with   the  want   of   a   due    veneration   for  antiquity, 
because   we    reject  most  of  the  ancient  ceremonies  which  they 
adopt ;  the  same  charge,  substantially  lies  against  them,  because 
they   reject  so  many  of  the   ancient  ceremonies.     The   ancient 
fathers  in  administering  baptism,  in  the  fourth  century,  immersed 
the  person  three  times,  naked,  and  then  made  the  sign  of  the  cross 


THE    LITURGY.  569 

on  his  forehead,  and  anointed  him  with  holy  oil.  But  Episcopa- 
lians reject  the  trine  immersion,  and  the  ceremony  of  nakedness, 
and  the  anointing,  and  do  not  commonly  use  immersion.  I  do  not 
blame  them  for  this.  But  where  is  their  deference  to  the  ancient 
church,  "when  they  reject  the  greater  part  of  the  ceremonies  which 
were  anciently  used  in  baptism  ? 

The  Episcopal  church  have,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  about 
twenty-eight  festivals,  and  about  one  hundred  fasts  ;  —  that  is,  one 
hundred  and  twenty-eight  holy-days,  in  addition  to  the  Lord's 
day  ;  —  taken  either  directly  from  the  Romish  church,  —  for 
instance,  the  festival  in  honor  of  the  Trinity,  which  Hobart  says  is 
comparatively  of  modern  date,  originating  as  it  did  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  —  or  from  what  they  call  the  primitive  church  ; 
and  all  on  the  ground  of  their  antiquity.  But  the  Romish  church, 
and  what  is  called  the  primitive  church,  had  many  more  festivals 
and  fasts.  If  then  the  founders  of  the  Episcopal  church  were 
governed  by  a  respect  for  antiquity,  why  did  they  not  take  the 
whole  list  of  the  holy-days,  as  well  as  a  part  ?  And  if  they  are  at 
Kberty  to  reject  more  or  fewer  of  the  holy-days  of  antiquity,  as 
they  judge  best ;  we  are  at  Uberty  to  do  the  same.  If  ancient 
usage  has  authority  over  us,  it  has  authority  throughout.  But  if 
we  renounce  the  authority  of  ancient  and  primitive  usage,  we  are 
thrown  back,  as  we  should  be,  upon  the  authority  of  what  is  more 
ancient  and  primitive,  that  is,  the  tvord  of  Qod. 

These  multiplied  outward  observances,  every  one  must  see,  are 
a  departure  from  the  Christian  Scriptures.  Neither  Christ  nor 
the  apostles  appointed  any  particular  days  to  be  kept  as  sacred  by 
the  church,  except  the  Lord's  day.  On  the  contrary,  the  Apostle 
Paul  expressly  discountenanced  such  observances.  In  the  way 
of  rebuke,  he  said  to  the  Galatians :  "  Ye  observe  days,  and 
months,  and  times,  and  years."  And  in  view  of  these  supersti- 
tions, he  said  to  them,  —  "I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have 
bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain."  And  he  spoke  of  them  as  in 
bondage  to  these  "  beggarly  elements."  If  the  same  Apostle  were 
here,  what  would  he  say  to  that  church,  which  has  made  about  one 
third  of  the  days  in  the  year  religious  festivals  and  fasts  ? 

48* 


570  THE     LITURGY. 

These  multiplied  rites  and  observances  though  they  fall  far 
short  of  those  in  the  Romish  church,  are,  in  my  view,  carried  to  a 
great  excess,  and,  if  fully  practised,  would  prove  an  intolerable 
yoke.  Think  of  more  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  festivals  and 
fasts,  —  one  third  part  of  the  whole  year  !  Think  of  forty  dajrs 
in  Lent.  Who  has  a  right  to  load  Christians  with  such  imposi- 
tions ?  I  was  born  free,  and  I  will  not  sell  my  birth-right.  Most 
cheerfully  will  I  submit  to  the  authority  of  God.  And  I  will 
show  my  respect  and  veneration  for  the  apostles,  not  by  keeping 
days  in  their  honor,  which  I  know  they  never  wished,  —  but  by 
believing  and  obeying  their  instructions.  But  what  is  uninspired 
man,  that  we  should  bow  the  knee  to  him,  and  should  eat  or  not 
eat,  work  or  pray,  at  his  bidding  ? 

This  whole  business  of  observing  days  and  months  and  times, 
which  began  in  the  Apostle's  day,  and  for  which  he  rebuked  the 
backsliding  Galatians,  has  an  obvious  tendency  to  corrupt  C7iri»- 
tianiti/,  and  to  substitute  external  forms  and  ceremonies  in  the 
place  of  real  godliness.  "When  I  look  at  the  machinery  of  the 
Episcopal  church  in  her  Sunday  services ;  her  multiplied  short 
prayers,  consisting  often  of  a  single  sentence  ;  the  frequent  repe- 
tition of  the  Lord's  prayer ;  the  continual  change  of  posture  among 
the  worshippers,  now  standing,  now  sitting,  now  kneeling  ;  the 
confused  noise  of  the  whole  congregation  often  speaking  the 
same  things  together  ;  the  minister's  singular  dress,  and  change 
of  place  and  attire ;  —  when  I  look  at  her  many  scores  of  fasts 
and  festivals  in  honor  not  only  of  God,  and  Christ,  but  of  the  mother 
of  Christ,  and  each  one  of  the  apostles,  —  in  honor  of  the 
slaughtered  infants  of  Bethlehem,  —  in  honor  of  all  saints,  —  and 
in  honor  of  Michael  and  all  angels  ;  —  at  her  crosses,  and  her 
pictures,  and  the  magnificence  of  her  cathedrals  ;  —  at  her  pro- 
tracted meetings  in  Lent,  and  at  other  times ;  when,  accustomed 
as  I  am  to  the  simplicity  of  Puritan  worship,  I  look  at  all  this 
solemn  machinery ;  I  am  sometimes  affected  with  a  mixture  of 
respect  and  doubt  and  fear;  —  and  sometimes  with  feelings, 
which  I  wish  to  avoid. 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  ceremonials  of  the  church  are  mat- 


THE    LITURGY.  571 

ters  of  taste,  not  of  argument.  So  be  it.  I  too  have  a  taste ; 
and,  if  it  does  not  contradict  anything  in  the  Bible,  I  have  a 
right  to  conform  to  its  suggestions.  Let  me  say  then,  that  I  have 
a  preference,  too  strong  to  be  expressed,  for  what  is  plain  and 
simple.  The  worship  of  the  Puritans,  and  their  freedom  from 
rites  and  forms  of  human  origin,  instead  of  being  contrary  to  any 
principle  of  Christianity,  are  certainly  conformed,  in  a  good 
measure,  to  the  pattern  set  before  us  by  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
In  this  respect  the  Puritans  acted  on  a  different  principle  from 
the  church  of  England,  —  which  did  not  even  pretend  to  follow 
the  simplicity  of  the  mode  of  worship  adopted  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  but  conformed,  and  that  professedly,  to  the  ceremonies 
and  observances  which  originated  in  the  ancient  church,  long 
after  the  days  of  inspiration. 


LECTURE   CXXV. 


POPULAR  FORM    OF   CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.      CONGREOATIONALISM 
AND    PRESBYTERIANISM. 

Having  given  particular  attention  to  the  government  of  the 
church  by  bishops  or  prelates,  we  shall  now  consider  the  popular 
form. 

Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  were  treated  with  equal 
regard  by  the  Founders  of  this  theological  Seminary,  as  appears 
from  their  statutes.  In  various  respects  these  two  denominations 
of  Christians  agree. 

1.  They  agree  in  acknowledging  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  Supreme  Head  of  the  church,  and  the  Scriptures  as  the 
sufficient  and  only  infallible  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice. 

2.  They  agree  as  to  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  evangelical  religion. 

3.  They  agree  substantially  as  to  the  mode  of  conducting 
public  worship  and  administering  the  sacraments. 

4.  They  agree  in  rejecting  prelacy,  and  in  maintaining  the 
parity  of  Christian  ministers. 

5.  They  agree  in  maintaining  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  or- 
dination. They  both  do  the  work  of  ordaining  by  an  assembly 
made  up  of  presbyters,  or  ordained  ministers,  and  lay  delegates 
from  the  churches ;  although  the  delegates  who  represent  the 
churches,  are  chosen,  and  the  ecclesiastical  body  that  ordains, 
is  constituted,  in  different  ways.  Presbyterian  churches  elect 
those    who    represent    them,   beforehand,   and    constitute    their 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  573 

presbyteries  as  standing  bodies ;  while  among  Congregational 
churches  the  delegates  are  elected  and  the  presbytery  or  ordain- 
ing council  is  constituted  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  requires. 
But  in  both,  the  ecclesiastical  body  that  ordains,  called  presbytery 
or  council,  is  composed  of  a  competent  number  of  ordained  min- 
isters and  lay  delegates. 

6.  In  a  Congregational  church,  the  discipline  of  its  members 
in  case  of  offence,  is  conducted,  and  other  ecclesiastical  business 
is  transacted,  by  the  members  of  the  church  regularly  assembled 
with  the  pastor,  as  an  ecclesiastical  body.  In  a  Presbyterian 
church,  this  is  all  done  by  the  pastor  and  the  ruhng  elders,  called 
the  session. 

7.  In  both  denominations,  there  is  provision  for  an  appeal  from 
the  iSrst  and  more  private  act  of  discipline ;  in  one,  from  the  act 
of  the  church  as  a  popular  assembly ;  in  the  other,  from  the  act 
of  the  session ;  the  appeal  in  the  former  case  being  to  a  mutual 
council,  chosen  at  the  time  by  the  parties ;  in  the  latter  case,  to 
the  presbytery,  previously  agreed  upon  by  the  churches.  In  the 
Presbyterian  church,  there  is  a  further  appeal  from  the  presbytery 
to  the  synod,  and  from  the  synod  to  the  general  assembly.  But 
in  the  Congregational  church,  there  is  no  appeal  to  any  ecclesias- 
tical body  superior  to  the  mutual  council. 

8.  In  the  Presbyterian  church  all  questions  in  regard  to  the 
treatment  of  offences  and  other  concerns,  are  finally  determined 
by  the  judicial  bodies  provided  by  the  constitution  of  the  church. 
But  Congregational  churches  claim  to  themselves,  as  popular  as- 
semblies, the  right  of  ultimate  decision ;  although  the  contending 
parties  frequently  deem  it  expedient  to  refer  the  ultimate  decision 
to  a  council  mutually  chosen. 

9.  In  both  denominations,  the  individual  members  of  a  church 
act  in  choosing  their  pastor ;  and  in  both,  the  ecclesiastical  body 
to  whom  the  right  of  ordination  belongs,  decide  as  to  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  pastor  elect,  and  as  to  the  expediency  of  setting 
him  apart  to  the  pastoral  office. 

10.  The  Presbyterian  churches  act  generally  on  the  principle 
of  representation.     Congregational  churches  adopt  the  principle 


674  CONGREGATIONALISM. 

in  the  business  of  councils.  And  many  of  them  appoint  a  com- 
mittee to  act  with  the  pastor  in  attending  to  other  ecclesiastical 
concerns. 

I  have  here  spoken  of  Congregational  principles  as  they  exist 
in  Massachusetts.  But  in  some  parts  of  New  England,  the  Say- 
brook  Platform  is  adopted,  and  consociations  are  formed,  having 
a  nearer  resemblance  to  presbyteries,  than  mutual  councils. 

The  above  is  a  general,  though  not  a  complete  view  of  the 
points  of  agreement  and  disagreement  between  Congregationalists 
and  Presbyterians. 

The  examination  of  the  subject  of  church  government  in  the 
preceding  Lectures  on  prelacy,  has  brought  to  view  the  principal 
arguments  from  Scripture  which  support  Congregationalism.  And 
this  examination,  I  think,  shows,  that  the  popular  form  of  govern- 
ment adopted  by  Congregationalists,  agrees  more  exactly  with 
the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  than  that  which  is  adopted 
by  any  other  branch  of  the  Christian  church. 

After  the  free  discussion  in  the  foregoing  Lectures  on  church 
government,  and  the  remarks  above  made,  I  shall  lay  before  you 
in  a  concise,  connected  view,  only  the  general  principles  of  Congre- 
gationalism as  they  are  made  known  by  the  Cambridge  Platform, 
together  with  other  well  known  writings  of  the  Puritans  and  the 
settled  practice  of  regular  Congregational  churches. 

1.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Supreme  Lawgiver  of  the 
church.  And  no  one  has  any  rightful  power  or  authority  in  the 
church,  except  what  the  Lord  Jesus  has  given  him  in  his  word. 
Neither  the  church  at  large,  nor  any  branch  of  it,  can  properly  be 
held  under  obligation  to  submit  or  yield  obedience  to  any  ruler, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  except  in  conformity  with  the  instructions 
of  the  New  Testament. 

2.  The  Christian  Scriptures  are  our  only  infallible  guide  in 
regard  to  the  constitution  and  government  of  the  Christian  church, 
as  well  as  in  regard  to  all  other  subjects.  So  far  as  any  writings 
of  human  origin  coincide  with  Scripture,  or  help  us  to  understand 
its- instructions,  they  are  to  be  gratefully  received.  But  whoever 
and  whatever  differs  from  the  Bible,  is  to  be  rejected.     In  this 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  675 

respect,  we  differ  from  all  those,  who  regard  the  writings  of  the 
early  Christian  fathers,  the  decisions  of  councils  or  the  judgment 
of  any  uninspired  men,  as  constituting,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the 
rule  of  our  faith,  or  as  possessing  any  ultimate  authority  over  our 
conscience,  either  as  to  the  doctrines  of  religion,  the  worship  of 
God,  or  the  government  of  his  church. 

3.  Cambridge  Platform^  together  with  other  writings  and  public 
acts  of  the  Puritans,  is  to  be  recognized  as  exhibiting  the  essential 
principles  of  Congregationalists  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  polity. 

4.  There  is,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  only  one  order  in  the 
gospel  ministry.  Ministers  may  indeed  differ  from  each  other  as 
to  knowledge,  piety,  and  usefulness.  But  they  are  all  equal  in 
ofiBce.  No  one  is  invested  with  authority  over  others ;  and  no 
one  is  subject  to  the  control  of  others. 

5.  While  the  leading  principles  of  church  government  are 
clearly  made  known  in  the  Avord  of  God,  the  business  of  applying 
these  principles  to  different  cases,  and  framing  bj'-laws  for  the 
regulation  of  public  worship  and  church  discipline,  belongs  to  the 
churches,  and  is  to  be  executed  according  to  their  sober  judgment 
and  discretion,  provided  that  they  do  not  violate  or  neglect  any- 
thing settled  by  the  word  of  God. 

6.  A  congregation  or  society  of  Christians,  bound  together  by 
solemn  covenant,  maintaining  the  great  truths  of  Christianity,  and 
attending  together  to  the  public  worship  of  God  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  gospel  ordinances  by  regularly  authorized  officers,  is  a 
true  and  complete  church  of  Christ,  and  has  power  within  itself  to 
conduct  its  own  concerns ;  and  is  under  no  subjection  or  respon- 
sibility to  any  other  church,  except  that  which  is  mutual,  and 
■which  is  enjoined  by  the  word  of  God. 

7.  It  belongs  to  the  individual  members  of  every  church  to 
choose  their  own  pastor,  to  discipline  offenders,  and  to  transact 
all  other  business  appertaining  to  them  as  a  particular  church. 
When  regularly  assembled,  they  are  to  deliberate  and  act,  and 
by  a  majority  of  votes  to  decide  every  question  which  properly 
comes  before  them. 

8.  Congregational   churches,  though  they   are  ^^distinct,  and 


576  CONGREGATIONALISM. 

therefore  may  not  be  confounded  one  with  another,  and  equal,  and 
therefore  have  no  dominion  one  over  another,"  *  yet  are  not  sep- 
arate bodies,  but  sustain  a  mutual  relation,  as  servants  of  the 
same  Lord,  and  branches  of  the  same  spiritual  kingdom,  and  are 
bound  to  maintain  Christian  fellowship  with  each  other,  to  watch 
over  each  other  in  love  and  faithfulness,  and  to  do  all  in  their 
power  to  protect  each  other's  rights,  to  encourage  each  other  in 
the  discharge  of  duty,  and  in  all  proper  ways  to  promote  each 
other's  peace  and  prosperity. 

9.  In  order  that  the  fellowship  existing  among  the  churches 
may  effectually  accomplish  its  objects,  it  is  important  that  the 
churches  should  agree  upon  a  definite  plan  of  intercourse,  and 
should  determine  in  what  manner  they  are  to  watch  over  each 
other,  in  what  respects  they  are  responsible  to  each  other,  and  in 
what  ways  they  are  to  protect  each  other's  rights,  and  promote 
each  other's  welfare  ;  —  and  also  what  shall  be  the  conditions  of 
their  fellowship,  and  when  and  how  it  shall  be  ended. 

10.  As  the  community  of  churches  is  interested  in  the  char- 
acter and  influence  of  gospel  ministers ;  every  Congregational 
minister  whether  he  is  a  pastor  or  not,  is  to  be  considered  as 
having  a- real  and  responsible  connection  with  Congregational 
churches  and  pastors.  Accordingly,  either  the  members  or  the 
pastors  of  Congregational  churches,  after  properly  dealing  with 
him  in  private,  may,  in  a  regular  manner,  prefer  charges  against 
him  before  an  ecclesiastical  council,  convened  according  to  rule, 
for  his  trial. 

11.  Any  member  of  a  church,  who  feels  himself  aggrieved  by 
any  act  of  the  church,  shall  have  the  right  to  appeal  to  a  mutual 
council. 

12.  Synods,  or  larger  councils,  duly  assembled,  and  rightly 
proceeding  according  to  the  Scriptures,  are  an  ordinance  of  God. 
And  it  belongeth  unto  synods  and  councils  to  determine  controver- 
sies of  faith  and  cases  of  conscience  ;  to  clear  from  the  Scriptures 
directions  for  the  worship  of  God  and  the  government  of  the 
church  ;  to  bear  testimony  against   mal-ad ministration  and  cor- 

*  See  Platfonn  ch.  15,  and  Uphani's  Ratio  Disciplinoe,  pp.  37,  43,  174 — 6,  and 
206. 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  577 

ruption  in  any  particular  church,  and  to  take  proper  measures  for 
the  reformation  thereof.* 

The  only  platform  of  church  government  which  has  ever  been 
adopted  by  the  ministers  and  churches  of  this  Commonwealth,  is 
the  Cambridge  Platform.  This  must  be  regarded  as  the  basis 
and  standard  of  Congregationalism.  For  although  this  Platform 
has  been  much  neglected  ;  and  although  certain  provisions  of  it, 
particularly  the  office  of  ruling  elders  and  the  distinction  between 
pastors  and  teachers,  have  been  given  up  by  universal  consent ; 
and  although  certain  usages,  not  authorized  by  the  Platform,  have 
worked  themselves  into  our  ecclesiastical  affairs ;  still  Coxigrega- 
tionalists  adhere  to  the  essential  jy^ineiples  of  the  Platform. 
And  no  scheme  of  church  pohty,  which  is  essentially  at  variance 
with  those  principles,  can  meet  the  approbation  of  enlightened  and 
judicious  Congregationalists. 

But  in  order  that  Congregational  ministers  and  churches  may 
more  clearly  manifest  the  excellence  of  their  ecclesiastical  system, 
and  more  fully  realize  its  benefits,  the  following  things  are  evi- 
dently important  and  necessary. 

1.  It  is  important  and  necessary  tJiat  the  fimdamental  princi- 
ples of  Conyregationalism,  and  the  rules  of  church  government 
resulting  from  them,  should  be  well  defined  and  firmly  established. 
The  Platform  is  an  ancient  document ;  antl  though  it  was  the 
product  of  men  of  powerful  intellects,  after  much  thought  and 
experience,  and  though  the  Puritan  fathers  deemed  it  well  suited 
to  tlie  wants  of  the  churches  in  their  day ;  it  evidently  needs  a 
careful  revising,  in  order  to  fit  it  more  fully  for  general  use  at  the 
present  day.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  it  contains  some 
principles  which  cannot  now  be  adopted.  It  is  clear  too  that  it 
has  some  obscurities  which  ought  to  be  removed,  and  deficiencies 
which  ought  to  be  supplied.  A  manual  of  discijyline,  derived 
from  the  Platform,  and  adapted  to  the  present  time,  would  be  of 
great  use  to  ministers  and  churches.  For  how  can  they  avoid 
mistakes  and  irregularities  in  matters  of  discipline,  unless  they 
have  before  them  a  sj'stem  of  principles  and  rules,  which  has  been 

*  See  riatforni,  ch.  15,  Sec.  1  and  4. 
VOL,    III.  49 


578  CONGREGATIONALISM. 

derived  from  Scripture  and  experience,  and  which  thej  can  regard 
as  a  safe  directory  in  ecclesiastical  proceedings  ?  And  how  can 
they  enjoy  the  benefits  of  Christian  fellowship,  unless  they  have  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  duties  they  owe  to  each  other,  and  of 
the  manner  in  which  those  duties  are  to  be  performed. 

Our  Puritan  fathers  felt  the  necessity  of  definite  principles  and 
rules.  This  necessity  is  more  urgent  now,  in  proportion  to  the 
increased  number  and  extent  of  our  churches  and  the  prevalence 
of  other  systems.  We  do  indeed  hold  that  Christ  is  our  Lawgiver, 
and  that  no  man  and  no  number  of  men  can  properly  undea-take  to 
legislate  for  the  churches.  But  it  is  important  for  us  to  have  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  laws  which  Christ  has  given  us.  And 
if,  in  anything,  he  has  left  it  to  us  to  proceed  according  to  our  own 
judgment ;  it  is  important  that  we  should  take  pains  to  use  our 
judgment  right. 

2.  It  is  important  that  ministers  and  churches  should  come  to  a 
substantial  agreement,  and  shoidd  in  all  material  points,  adopt  the 
same  system  of  ecclesiastical  principles  and  rules.  Without  this, 
how  can  they  maintain  fellowship  with  one  another  ?  If  some 
churches  proceed  in  one  way,  and  some  in  another,  they  will  not 
only  lose  the  benefit  of  cooperation,  but  will  be  likely  to  clash 
with  each  other ;  and  instead  of  affording  mutual  aid  and  support, 
they  will  often  occasion  embarrassment  and  trouble  to  each  other. 

"  Such  looseness,  neglect  and  disagreement,"  as  now  exist 
among  us,  "  are  neither  seemly  nor  profitable  ;  nor  would  they  in 
other  communities  be  tolerated.  Every  human  society,  that  is 
permanent  in  its  nature  and  great  design,  should,  as  far  as  practi- 
cable, be  governed  by  definite,  settled,  and  well  known  rules. 
And  where  communities,  like  our  churches,  are  associated,  and 
members  of  them  are  frequently  transferred  from  one  to  another, 
inconvenience,  dissatisfaction  and  offence  are  likely  to  result  from 
the  application  of  principles  and  rules,  about  which  there  is  igno- 
rance, or  in  respect  to  which  there  are  dilierent  views  and  habits 
of  feeling.  Where  wholesome  laws  are  definite  and  known,  they 
are  more  apt  to  be  approved,  and  are  more  readily  obeyed  ;  and 
when  broken,  the  offender  is  more  easily  made  sensible  of  his  fault, 
and  is  therefore  more  likely  to  forsake  it." 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  579 

Various  writers  have  published  ])ooks  of  great  value,  setting 
forth  what  they  understood  to  be  the  principles  of  Congregational- 
ism. In  most  cases,  these  writers  agree,  in  some  they  differ. 
But  Congregationalists  have  not  adopted  the  views  of  either.  Is 
it  not  important  that  Ave  should  seriously  endeavor  in  some  proper 
way,  to  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  principles  and  rules  of 
church  government  ?  There  is  no  mare  reason  to  think  that  Con- 
gregational churches  can  have  order  and  prosperity  without  a 
system  of  definite  rules  in  which  they  agree,  than  that  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  Commonwealth  can  have  order  and  prosperity 
witliout  a  code  of  well  defined  civil  laws,  published  for  common 
use.  Is  it  not  then  the  manifest  duty  of  Congregational  ministers 
and  churches  to  determine,  deliberately  and  unitedly,  Avhat  the 
principles  of  Congregationalism  are,  and  then  in  all  their  ecclesi- 
astical proceedings  to  carry  them  into  practice  ? 

The  want  of  uniform  and  definite  rules  is  manifest  in  regard  to 
the  treatynent  of  church  members  who  are  chargeable  ivith  offences. 
Suppose  an  offender  is  excommunicated.  In  present  circum- 
stances he  has  it  in  his  power  to  give  great  trouble  to  the  church, 
and  frequently  to  evade  the  force  of  its  most  solemn  acts.  The 
church  claims,  arid  that  justly,  the  right  to  discipline  its  own  mem- 
bers. At  the  same  time,  any  one  who  is  under  censure  has,  by 
common  consent,  the  right  of  appeal  to  an  ecclesiastical  council. 
Now  this  right  of  appeal,  and  the  inherent  right  of  the  church, 
might  be  so  defined  and'  adjusted,  as  not  to  clash  with  one 
another.  But  at  present,  we  have  no  effectual  provision  to  sus- 
tain a  church  in  the  exercise  of  its  right,  and  to  bring  the  disci- 
pline of  an  offender  to  a  final  and  peaceful  issue.  The  church 
may,  at  the  request  of  one  under  censure,  consent  to  a  mutual 
council,  and  that  mutual  council  may  approve  the  domgs  of  the 
church.  But  in  present  circumstances,  what  is  there  to  prevent 
an  excommunicant  from  demanding  a  second  mutual  council,  and 
a  third?  And  in  case  of  a  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  church, 
what  can  hinder  him  from  calling  an  ex  parte  council  ?  And  it  is 
well  known  that  even  after  a  church  has  consented  to  one,  or 
more  than  one  mutual  council,  an  ex  parte  council  may  come  in, 


580  COXGREGATIOXALISM. 

and,  instead  of  sustaining  the  church  in  the  exercise  of  its  rights, 
raay  nullify  its  most  righteous  acts  ;  and  bj  receiving  an  offender 
Vvdio  is  under  censure,  to  their  fellowsliip,  may  give  countenance  to 
the  commission  of  offences  in  other  members,  and  trample  under 
foot  the  honor  and  authority  of  the  church.  How  important  and 
how  easy  it  is  for  the  churches  to  agree  upon  a  rule,  which  shall 
shut  the  door  against  these  disorders,  and  shall  effectually  sustain 
every  church  in  the  exercise  of  its  rights,  and  at  the  same  time 
provide  a  remedy  for  the  injustice  of  any  of  its  acts  towards  its 
members.  Congregational  churches  pretend  not  to  be  infallible  ; 
and  they  are  willing  to  grant  to  any  member  who  complains  of 
injustice,  the  right  of  appeal  to  an  ecclesiastical  council.  All  that 
seems  necessary  is,  that  they  should  determine,  by  a  united  act, 
how  the  appeal  shall  be  made,  and  how  the  case  of  discipline  shall 
be  terminated.  Let  it  be  settled  by  common  agreement,  whether 
an  excommunicated  member,  if  he  requests  it,  shall  be  entitled  to 
appeal  to  a  mutual  council ;  and  then  what  shall  be  the  influence 
of  that  council's  result.  If  the  council  sustains  the  act  of 
the  church,  shall  the  excommunicant  be  entitled  to  a  second  and 
third  appeal,  or  shall  the  act  of  the  church,  thus  supported  by  a 
mutual  council,  be  regarded  as  final  ?  On  the  contrary,  if  the 
council  disapproves  the  act  of  the  church,  and  judges  that  the 
member  who  makes  complaint,  has  been  injured,  and  ought  to  be 
restored  ;  shall  such  a  decision  of  the  council  be  final  ?  Or  shall 
it  still  lie  with  the  church  to  determine  by  its  own  act,  how  the 
case  shall  be  treated  ?  And  shall  this  act  of  the  church  be  final, 
leaving  no  room  for  the  excommunicated  person  to  make  any  fur- 
ther appeal  ?  The  great  thing  wanted  is,  that  the  churches 
should  come  to  a  definite  agreement  on  this  point,  so  that  they 
may  support  each  other  in  the  exercise  of  their  inherent  right  to 
discipline  their  own  members,  and  may  scrupulously  avoid  what- 
ever would  in  any  way  interfere  with  that  right.  If  this  matter 
is  left  unsettled,  what  prospect  is  there  of  efficient  discipline  and 
mutual  harmony  and  love  among  the  churches  ?  And  how  can 
the  fundamental  principle  of  Congregationalism  be  maintained,  if 
the  power  of  discipline  is  wrested  from  the  church,  and  wielded 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  581 

by  others  who  choose  to  act  in  concert  Avith  an  offender  ?  And 
who  can  think  it  right  that  any  church,  in  its  endeavors  to  dis- 
charge its  most  difficult  and  painful  duties,  should  he  hindered  or 
discouraged  by  those  sister  churches,  who  ought  always  to  afford 
the  most  friendly  countenance  and  aid  ? 

Again.  The  Avant  of  uniform  and  definite  rules  is  at  present 
manifest,  in  regard  to  the  discipline  of  ministers  chargeable  with 
immoraliti/  or  heresy. 

A  Christian  minister,  whose  character  and  conduct  are  so  insep- 
arably connected  with  the  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom,  should 
certainly  be  subject  to  the  inspection  of  his  brethren,  and,  in  some 
proper  way,  should  be  admonished  by  them,  and  deposed  from  the 
ministry  when  the  case  requires  it ;  and,  when  unjustly  accused, 
should  be  able  to  avail  himself  of  their  protection  and  support. 
It  would  be  a  great  evil  for  private  members  of  the  church  to  be 
free  from  responsibility  to  their  brethren.  But  if  ministers  of  the 
gospel  should  be  thus  free  from  responsibihty,  the  evil  would  be 
still  greater.  According  to  the  general  practice  at  the  present 
time,  a  church  may  complain  of  their  pastor  for  any  offence,  and 
bring  him  for  trial  before  a  mutual  council.  But  they  may 
neglect  their  duty  in  this  respect.  And  in  that  case,  how  shall 
the  offender  be  called  to  account  ?  Suppose  him  guilty  of  gross 
immorality  or  heresy.  And  suppose  that  notwithstanding  this,  he 
is  still  sustained  by  his  church.  His  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and 
in  the  neighboring  churches,  may  be  grieved  at  his  conduct.  But 
what  ecclesiastical  rule  is  there,  which  would  authorize  them  to 
bring  him  before  a  council  for  trial,  or  in  any  way  to  deal  with 
him  for  his  offence  ?  Take  another  case,  —  that  of  a  regularly 
ordained  minister,  not  connected  as  a  pastor  with  any  church, 
though  still  active  in  the  ministry ;  and  suppose  liim  guilty  of 
flagrant  immorality.  Is  it  not  a  manifest  defect  in  the  present 
condition  of  Congregationahsts,  that  there  is  no  way  agreed  upon 
among  them,  in  which  such  a  minister  can  be  subjected  to  ecclesi- 
astical discipline  ?  It  is  indeed  true,  that  individuals  may  with- 
draw fellowship  from  him.  But  ought  they  to  do  this,  without 
giving  him  a  fair  trial  ?  And  is  it  not  important  that  they  should 
49* 


582  cojStgkegationalism. 

agree  upon  some  definite  method  in  which  such  a  trial  may  be 
instituted  ? 

There  is  also  a  manifest  defect  in  our  present  ecclesiastical 
state  in  regard  to  the  fellowship  of  the  churches,  and  the  manner  in 
■which  they  are  to  treat  one  another  when  offences  occur. 

Congregational  churches  have  always  professed  to  hold  fellow- 
ship with  each  other.  And  the  Platform  (ch.  15.)  points  out 
several  ways  in  which  that  fellowship  is  to  be  maintained.  In 
various  respects  it  has  been  maintained  ;  and  the  benefits  of  it 
have  been  experienced.  But  do  we  carry  out  fully  into  practice 
the  provisions  of  the  Platform  and  the  principles  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  regard  to  the  fellowship  and  the  mutual  responsibihty  of 
the  churches  ?  The  Platform  provides,  that  if  any  public  offence 
is  found  in  a  church,  other  churches  are  to  deal  with  it  in  the  way 
of  admonition,  and  finally,  if  the  case  so  requires,  in  the  way  of 
withdrawing  fellowship.  Is  it  not  important  that  the  churches 
should  determine  whether  they  will  hold  to  this  provision  ?  —  and 
if  they  do,  that  they  should  agree  upon  the  method  in  which  they 
will  maintain  this  inspection  over  one  another  ? 

It  is  also  desirable  and  important  that  the  Congregational 
churches  should  be  agreed  in  the  adoption  of  a  Confession  of 
Faith.  This  was  a  main  point  with  those  who  framed  the  Plat- 
form. In  1648,  they  unanimously  adopted  the  following  vote, 
namely  :  "  The  Synod,  having  perused  and  considered  with  much 
gladness  of  heart  and  thankfulness  to  God,  the  Confession  of 
Faith  pubhshed  of  late  by  the  Reverend  Assembly  in  England,  do 
judge  it  to  be  very  holy,  orthodox,  and  judicious  in  all  matters  of 
faith,  and  do  therefore  freely  and  fully  consent  thereto,  for  the 
substance  thereof."  And  they  afterwards  expressed  their  approval 
of  the  same  confession  of  faith  at  different  times  and  in  various 
ways.  If  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Massachusetts  are  united 
in  receiving  the  great  principles  of  rehgion  which  are  contained  in 
the  word  of  God,  Avhy  should  they  not,  for  the  honor  of  their  reli- 
gion, publicly  express  their  union  ? 

As  to  the  essential  principles  of  Congregationalism,  we  have  no 
occasion  to  shrink  from  scrutiny.     Though  in  many  respects  we 


CONGREGATIONALISM.  583 

agree  with  the  other  branches  of  Protestant  Christendom  ;  in 
some  respects  we  differ  from  them.  But  we  have  no  fear  that  the 
most  thorough  sifting  and  weighing  of  the  essential  principles  of 
the  Congregational  system  would  be  otherwise  than  advantageous 
to  it.  What  seems  to  be  necessary  is,  that  the  genuine  principles 
of  our  denomination,  together  with  the  rules  of  discipline,  should 
be  definitely  stated,  and  arranged  in  proper  order,  and  that  minis- 
ters and  churches  should  unitedly  adopt  and  maintain  them.  This, 
with  the  divine  blessing,  is  what  is  wanted  to  give  increasing 
prosperity  to  Congregational  churches,  and  to  recommend  their 
principles  to  the  approbation  of  others. 


LECTURE    CXXVI 


PERSONAL    RELIGION    A    NECESSARY    QUALIFICATION    FOR    THE 
CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY. 

In  these  closing  Lectures,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  the  im- 
portance of  real  piety  to  those  who  are  preparing  for  the  sacred 
ofl&ce.  This  is  a  subject  which,  I  trust,  the  members  of  this 
Seminary  have  often  and  very  seriously  considered.  But  does  it 
hold  as  high  a  place  in  your  esteem  as  it  ought  ?  My  wish  is, 
that  the  subject  may  be  so  impressed  on  your  minds  and  may  so 
influence  your  habits  of  thinking  and  feeling,  that  neither  the 
charms  of  literature,  nor  the  diligence  and  zeal  which  you  exercise 
in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge,  may  ever  turn  you  aside  from  the 
cultivation  of  vital  godliness  as  the  most  essential  qualification  for 
the  ministry. 

First  of  all  then,  search  the  Scriptures,  and  see  how  the  present 
subject  is  treated  by  those  who  were  infallibly  guided  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  According  to  their  instructions,  he  that  undertakes 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  "  must  be  blameless  as  the  steward  of 
God ;  not  self-willed ;  not  soon  angry ;  not  given  to  wine,  or  to 
filthy  lucre ;  but  a  lover  of  hospitahty ;  a  lover  of  good  men ; 
sober,  just,  holy,  temperate."  He  must  "  follow  righteousness, 
godliness,  faith,  love,  patience,  meekness."  His  piety  must  be  so 
uniform  and  unexceptionable,  that  he  may  be  an  example  to 
behevers  in  all  the  branches  of  goodness. 

Next,  consider  the  nature  of  the  church,  for  whose  welfare 
ministers  are  to  labor.     The  church  is  the  object  of  God's  ever- 


PERSONAL    RELIGION.  585 

lasting  love,  and  is  to  bear  the  image  of  his  holiness.  Here  his 
perfections  are  to  liave  their  highest  manifestation,  and  his  grace 
is  to  abound  in  the  salvation  of  sinners.  Into  this  sacred  society, 
this  spiritual  kingdom,  the  apostate  children  of  men  are  to  be 
introduced  bj  the  agency  of  the  ministers  of  Christ.  But  how 
can  their  agency  turn  to  any  good  account  in  this  spiritual,  holy 
•work,  unless  they  are  the  subjects  of  holiness  themselves  ?  Can 
you  expect  that  an  enemy  of  God  will  successfully  persuade 
others  to  become  his  friends  ?  Is  it  wise  to  commission  a  rebel  to 
vindicate  the  law  and  the  government  which  he  hates  ? 

Consider  the  high  and  sacred  object  for  which  the  ministry  was 
instituted.  The  Apostle  says  :  "  We  are  ambassadors  of  Christ, 
as  though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us  ;  we  pray  you  in  Christ's 
stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  The  salvation  of  men  is  the 
appropriate  end  which  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  con- 
stantly seek.  But  with  what  prospect  of  success  can  those  men 
seek  the  salvation  of  others,  who  have  never  in  good  earnest 
sought  their  own  ?  Can  it  be  expected  that  they  who  have  never 
known  the  preciousness  of  Christ  in  their  own  experience,  will 
heartily  recommend  him  to  them  that  are  lost  ? 

Further  to  illustrate  the  subject  before  you,  I  shall  point  out 
distinctly  some  of  the  principal  duties  of  ministers. 

One  of  their  chief  duties  is,  to  preach  the  gospel.  But  if  desti- 
tute of  religion,  they  will  be  likely  to  fail  both  in  the  matter  and 
the  manner  of  preaching.  Whatever  speculative  knowledge  they 
may  acquire,  the  things  of  the  Spirit  will  be  foohshness  to  them, 
and  they  cannot  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned. In  respect  to  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  espe- 
cially those  which  relate  to  inward,  spiritual  religion,  their 
preaching  will,  in  all  probability,  be  deficient.  They  will  not 
declare  all  the  counsel  of  God.  They  will  be  led  by  their  own 
feelings,  or  by  a  regard  to  the  feelings  of  others,  to  pass  over  in 
silence  those  parts  of  evangeUcal  truth,  in  which  ministerial  fidelity 
is  chiefly  concerned.  Or  if  they  undertake  to  preach  the  more 
spiritual,  humbling  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  they  will  be  likely  so 
to  shape  and  qualify  them  as  to  obstruct  their  efficacy.    Nothing 


586  PERSONAL    RELIGION. 

can  impel  a  minister  faithfully  to  hold  forth  the  whole  extent  of 
evangelical  truth,  but  that  decided  principle  of  piety,  that  cor- 
dial love  to  Christ,  which  is  never  intimidated  by  danger,  and 
never  drawn  aside  by  the  attractions  of  worldly  honor  or  pleasure. 

But  even  if  any  of  those  who  are  destitute  of  piety,  should  not 
fail  essentially  as  to  the  matter  of  their  preaching,  they  will  doubt- 
less fail  as  to  the  manner.  They  will  offend  discerning  hearers 
by  the  display  of  vanity,  or  a  haughty  independence  ;  or  by  man- 
ifesting a  temper  which  delights  in  giving  pain,  or  by  making  it 
evident  that  they  go  through  their  duties  as  an  unwelcome  task. 
In  one  way  or  another,  their  unsanctified  spirit  will  insinuate  itself 
into  their  preaching  or  prayers,  so  as  to  hinder  the  edification  of 
Christians  and  the  conversion  of  sinners.  They  cannot  be  expect- 
ed to  have  that  affectionate  manner,  which  flows  from  goodness  of 
heart.  The  Apostle  addressed  men  with  parental  kindness.  He 
says  to  the  Thessalonians :  "  We  were  gentle  among  you,  even 
as  a  tender  mother  cherisheth  her  children."  And  he  was  willing 
to  labor  and  suffer  for  them,  because  they  were  dear  to  him. 
Ministers  who  possess  this  spirit,  will  declare  the  most  mortifying 
truths,  and  administer  the  most  solemn  warning  and  reproof  with 
faithfulness  and  love.  But  how  can  this  be  done  by  those  in 
whom  the  inward  affection  is  wanting  ?  Who  can  successfully 
counterfeit  the  language,  the  looks  and  the  voice  of  love  ? 

Another  important  duty  of  a  minister  is  to  visit  the  sick  and 
the  dying,  and  by  conversation  and  prayer  adapted  to  their  state, 
to  labor  for  their  spiritual  good.  In  the  chamber  of  sickness  he 
meets,  perhaps  for  the  last  time,  those  who  have  been  committed  to 
his  care  and  for  whom  he  must  give  account.  What  seriousness, 
•wisdom,  and  tenderness  does  he  need  !  What  care  should  he  take 
on  the  one  hand,  against  causing  agitation  and  needless  distress, 
and  on  the  other  hand  against  contributing  to  false  comfort  and 
security  in  sin !  In  such  circumstances,  what  a  clear  apprehension 
of  divine  truth  does  a  servant  of  Christ  need  !  What  tenderness 
of  feeling !  What  plainness  and  gentleness  of  speech !  What 
near  views  of  eternity !  How  can  a  man  be  fit  for  duties  like 
these,  who  has  never  experienced  the  power  of  godliness  in  his 
own  heart ! 


PERSONAL    RELIGION.  587 

To  a  truly  pious  minister  the  death-bed  of  believers  is  inde- 
scribably solemn  and  delightful.  Before  him  are  those  who  have 
been  washed  from  their  sins,  and  have  known  the  conflicts  and 
joys  of  a  Christian  life,  —  now  about  to  be  absent  from  the  body 
and  present  with  the  Lord.  It  is  his  duty  to  aid  them  in  the  last 
work  of  preparation  for  heaven.  By  setting  before  them  tho 
unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  he  must  strengthen  their  faith,  and 
cheer  their  drooping  spirits.  He  must  enlighten  and  comfort 
those  "who  are  soon  going  to  the  regions  of  light  and  joy.  He 
must  unite  in  prayer  and  praise  with  those  who  are  shortly  to  join 
the  general  assembly  of  the  saints  above.  He  must  help  them 
to  achieve  their  final  victory  over  their  spiritual  enemies.  He 
must  speak  of  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  glories  of  heaven, 
and  must  speak  of  them  as  what  he  himself  has  known  and  felt. 
While  he  pronounces  over  them,  —  "  Blessed  are  the  dead  who 
die  in  the  Lord ;  —  to  him  that  overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit 
with  me  on  my  throne  ;"  he  must  feelingly  anticipate  with  them 
the  blessedness  of  such  a  death,  and  the  rewards  of  such  a 
victory.  How  unprepared  for  these  solemn  duties  is  a  minister 
destitute  of  holiness  !  The  death-bed  of  believers  must  be  to  him 
an  unwelcome,  gloomy  place.  And  if  he  intrudes  himself  upon 
this  threshold  of  heaven,  it  ought  to  be  for  the  purpose  of  learning 
the  first  lessons  of  divine  wisdom. 

The  whole  business  of  dealing  with  men  in  public  and  private 
respecting  their  spiritual  interests,  requires  in  a  minister  a  practical 
actjuaintance  with  divine  things,  and  the  steady  influence  of  evan- 
gelical aifection.  Without  this,  he  will  be  in  danger  of  giving  coun- 
tenance to  the  delusive  hopes  of  the  impenitent,  or  of  discouraging 
those  who  are  poor  in  spirit.  He  will  not  give  to  sinners  the 
instructions  which  love  and  fidelity  require.  He  will  not  duly 
declare,  the  holy  requirements  of  God's  law,  the  perfect  obligation 
of  all  men  to  obey,  and  the  necessity  of  being  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  through  this  want  of  watchfulness,  this  neglect  of 
ministers  to  set  forth  plainly  the  truths  of  the  law  and  the  gospel, 
that  the  name  of  Christ  is  so  often  dishonored  by  the  admission 
of  unregenerate  persons  into  his  church. 


588  PERSONAL  RELIGION. 

It  is  evident  that  not  only  real  but  eminent  piety  is  necessary 
to  enable  a  minister  to  perform  his  various  duties  with  suitable 
resolution,  self-denial,  and  zeal.  The  Apostle  Paul,  whose  ex- 
ample should  be  followed  by  all  who  bear  the  sacred  oflEice,  was 
wholly  in  his  work.  He  shrunk  back  from  no  labor  or  suffering. 
He  was  willing  to  spend  and  be  spent  for  the  salvation  of  men, 
fearless  of  opposition  and  danger.  He  approved  himself  a  faith- 
ful servant  of  Christ  in  much  affliction  and  distress,  in  watchings 
and  fastings,  in  stripes  and  imprisonment.  But  his  resolution  and 
zeal  were  joined  with  discretion  and  mildness.  He  made  himself 
servant  to  all  that  he  might  gain  the  more.  To  the  Jews  he 
became  as  a  Jew,  that  he  might  gain  the  Jews :  to  the  weak,  he 
became  as  weak,  that  he  might  gain  the  weak.  He  was,  in  the 
right  sense,  made  all  things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  by  all 
means  save  some.  This  combination  of  seemingly  opposite  virtues 
extended  its  happy  influence  over  all  his  conduct  as  a  servant 
of  Christ. 

But  how  is  it  with  a  minister  without  the  grace  of  God  in  his 
heart.  He  may  have  a  kind  of  zeal  —  a  zeal  which  will  act  itself 
out  in  ostentation  or  rashness  —  a  zeal  which  will  compass  sea 
and  land  to  make  proselytes,  or  will  breathe  out  threatenings  and 
slaughter  against  opposers.  Or  if  you  see  in  him  the  appearance 
of  meekness,  it  will  be  a  meekness  which  will  lead  to  conformity 
with  the  world,  and  a  forsaking  of  Christ  in  time  of  danger.  It 
will  be  a  meekness  or  gentleness,  which  will  render  him  accessi- 
ble to  temptation,  and  dispose  him  to  move  with  the  current  of 
popular  feeling.  If  he  shows  a  pliable,  yielding  disposition,  it  will 
not  be  for  the  cause  of  Christ,  but  for  his  own  selfish  ends.  The 
zeal  of  a  minister  of  distinguished  moral  excellence,  will  from  its 
very  nature  be  joined  with  discretion ;  his  resolution  with  gentle- 
ness ;  his  firmness  with  condescension  and  kindness.  In  him  all 
these  properties  are  of  the  same  nature,  and  by  being  har- 
moniously blended  together,  form  a  completeness  of  ministerial 
character. 

Uniform  and  eminent  piety  is  necessary  to  prepare  a  minister  to 
encounter  tJie  trials  and  difficulties  of  his  office.     Sooner  or  later, 


PERSONAL  RELIGIOX.  589 

he  must  meet  not  only  with  those  adverse  events  which  are  com- 
mon to  men,  but  v^ith  those  which  are  peculiar  to  the  ministry. 
If  possessed  of  habitual  and  exemplary  goodness,  he  will  bear  his 
trials  with  fortitude  and  submission.  What  can  exceed  the  simpli- 
city and  calmness  with  which  the  Apostle  recounts  his  sufferings. 
*'  Of  the  Jews  five  times  I  received  forty  stripes  save  one.  Thrice 
was  I  beaten  with  rods ;  once  was  I  stoned ;  thrice  I  suffered 
shipwreck  ;  a  night  and  a  day  I  have  been  in  the  deep ;  in  jour- 
neyings  often ;  in  perils  in  the  city ;  in  perils  in  the  wilderness ; 
in  perils  in  the  sea ;  in  perils  among  false  brethren  ;  in  weariness 
and  painfulness ;  in  watchings  often ;  in  hunger  and  thirst ;  in 
cold  and  nakedness."  Under  all  these  sufferings,  he  was  not 
only  patient,  but  cheerful  and  happy.  And  such  in  a  measure 
will  every  minister  be,  whose  heart  is  governed  by  divine  grace. 
He  will  be  prepared  for  trials,  particularly  the  trials  which  result 
from  the  misconduct  of  those  to  whom  he  is  called  to  minister  in 
holy  things,  some  of  whom  despise  his  instructions,  and  even 
regard  him  as  an  enemy  because  he  tells  them  the  truth.  He 
cannot  but  notice  their  ingratitude  and  perverseness  with  anxiety 
and  grief.  But  he  will  still  love  them  and  seek  their  welfare. 
He  will  cheerfully  bear  with  their  faults  and  their  injuries, 
and  think  little  of  his  own  sufferings,  for  the  sake  of  promoting 
the  salvation  of  their  souls.  How  often  soever  they  requite  his 
faithful  labors  with  coldness  and  contempt,  he  will  still  persevere 
in  his  sacred  work  with  unabating  zeal. 

Far  otherwise  will  it  be  with  a  minister  who  is  destitute  of 
piety,  or  whose  piety  is  wanting  in  activity  and  steadfastness. 
How  soon  will  his  temper  be  ruffled  and  his  patience  exhausted 
by  the  difficulties  of  his  office.  The  evils  to  which  he  is  subjected, 
from  the  prejudices  or  the  divisions  of  his  flock,  which  should 
excite  his  pious  solicitude  in  their  behalf,  produce  an  abatement 
of  his  pastoral  affection,  and  render  his  duties  unpleasant  and 
irksome.  Forgetting  the  silent  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ, 
he  complains  of  the  trouble  which  comes  upon  him  from  the  mis- 
conduct of  his  people,  yea,  he  complains  of  those  very  evils  which 
his  own  negligence  or  indiscretion  has  occasioned  ;  and  sometimes 

VOL.  III.  50 


590  PERSONAL    RELIGION. 

he  heaps  reproaches  upon  those  who  have  been  committed  to  his 
charge,  -when  he  ought  to  mourn  before  God  for  the  obstacles 
which  his  own  unfaithfulness  has  thrown  in  the  way  of  their  sal- 
vation. He  becomes  at  length  so  far  alienated  from  them,  that 
he  would  gladly  cast  oflf  the  obligations  which  bind  him  to  their 
service. 


LECTURE    CXXVIII. 


NECESSITY  OF  PERSONAL  RELIGION. 

Consider  in  the  next  place  how  necessary  it  is  that  a  minister 
should  be  devotedly  pious  in  order  to  his  usefulness.  I  would 
not  deny  that  a  minister  may  in  various  ways  be  useful,  though 
influenced  merely  by  natural  principles.  My  position  is,  that 
real  and  active  piety  is  indispensable  to  that  kind  and  degree  of 
usefulness,  which  is  approjpriate  to  the  ministerial  office. 

The  example  of  an  ungodly  minister  will,  in  point  of  salutary 
influence,  fall  very  far  below  that  of  one  possessed  of  distinguished 
piety.  It  is  in  this  important  respect,  that  a  minister  who  has 
little  or  no  religion,  will  be  hkely  sooner  or  later  to  show  his  woful 
deficiency. 

Again.  No  one  who  duly  considers  the  well  known  principles  of 
God's  moral  government,  can  suppose  that  he  will  crown  the 
labors  of  an  unsanctified  minister  with  as  much  success,  as  the 
labors  of  one  who  is  sincerely  pious  and  faithful.  Whatever  his 
natural  or  literary  qualifications  may  be,  he  has  no  title  to  the 
divine  blessing,  and  no  reason  to  expect  that  God  will  hear  hia 
prayers. 

"Verily,"  says  one  of  the  best  of  ministers,*  —  "verily  it  is  the  common 
danger  and  calamity  of  the  church  to  have  unregenerate  pastors.  Many  becomo 
preachers,  before  they  are  Christians;  are  sanctified  by  dedication  to  the  altar  a« 
God's  priests,  before  they  are  sanctified  by  hearty  dedication  to  Christ  as  his  disciple*. 

*  Hichard  Baxter. 


592  PERSONAL   RELIGION. 

Thus  they  worship  an  unknown  God,  preach  an  unknown  Saviour,  an  unknowa 
Spirit,  an  unknown  state  of  holiness,  and  a  future  glory  that  is  unknown,  and  to 
be  unknown  to  them  forever.  And  can  it  be  expected,  that  such  persons  will 
prove  any  great  blessings  to  the  church  ?  How  can  it  be  imagined  that  he  is 
likely  to  he  successful,  who  dealeth  not  heartily  and  fiiithfuUy  in  his  work;  who 
never  soundly  believes  what  he  saA's,  nor  is  ever  truly  serious,  when  he  seems 
most  diligent  ?  And  can  you  think  that  any  unsanctified  man  can  be  hearty  and 
serious  in  the  ministerial  work  ?  A  kind  of  seriousness  indeed  he  may  have. 
But  the  seriousness  and  fidelity  of  a  sound  believer,  who  ultimately  intends  the 
honor  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  men,  he  cannot  have.  Oh,  Sirs,  all  yonr 
preaching  will  be  but  dreaming  and  trifling  hypocrisy,  till  the  woi-k  be  thoroughly 
done  upon  yourselves !  How  can  you  constantly  ajjply  yourselves  to  a  work  to 
which  your  carnal  hearts  are  averse  ?  How  can  you,  with  hearty  favor,  call  upon 
sinners  to  repent  and  come  to  God,  who  never  did  either  yourselves  1  How  can 
you  follow  them  with  importunate  solicitations  to  forsake  sin  and  betake  themselves 
to  an  holy  life,  who  never  felt  the  evil  of  the  one,  or  the  worth  of  the  other?  And 
let  me  tell  you,  that  these  things  are  never  well  known,  till  they  are  felt ;  and  that 
he  who  feeleth  them  not  himself,  is  not  likely  to  speak  feelingly  of  them  to  others. 
He  that  does  not  so  strongly  believe  the  word  of  God  and -the  life  to  come,  as  to 
take  off  his  own  heart  from  the  vanities  of  this  world,  and  to  bring  him  with  reso- 
lution and  diligence,  to  seek  his  own  salvation,  cannot  be  expected  to  be  faitliful 
in  seeking  the  salvation  of  other  men.  He  that  dares  to  destroy  himself,  will  dare 
to  let  others  alone  in  the  way  to  destruction.  Alas,  many  preachers  of  the  gospel 
are  enemies  to  the  gospel  which  they  preach.  Oh.  how  many  such  traitors  have 
been  in  the  church  of  Christ,  who  have  done  more  against  him  under  his  colors, 
than  they  could  have  done  in  the  open  field  ! " 

"  Your  people,"  the  same  author  says,  -  are  likely  to  feel  it,  when  you  have  been 
much  with  God.  I  must  say  from  lamentable  experience,  that  I  publish  to  my 
flock  the  distempers  of  my  own  soul.  When  I  let  my  heart  grow  cold,  my 
preaching  is  cold  ;  and  when  it  is  confused,  my  preaching  is  confused  also.  And  I 
have  often  observed  it  in  the  best  of  my  hearers,  that  when  I  have  grown  cold  in 
preaching,  they  have  grown  cold  accordingly.  You  cannot  decline  and  neglect 
your  duty,  but  o?/fp/-s  will  be  losers  by  it.  If  we  let  our  love  decrease,  —  it  will 
appear  in  our  doctrine.  If  the  matter  show  it  not,  the  manner  will ;  and  our  hearers 
are  likely  to  fare  the  worse  for  it.  Whereas,  if  we  could  abound  in  faith,  and 
love,  and  zeal;  how  would  they  overflow  to  the  refreshing  of  our  congregations! 
Watch  therefore  over  your  own  hearts.  If  it  be  not  your  daily,  serious  business 
to  study  your  own  hearts,  to  subdue  your  corruptions  and  to  walk  with  God,  all 
will  go  amiss  with  you,  and  you  will  starve  your  audience." 

The  pernicious  influence  of  a  minister  destitute  of  godliness, 
can  hardly  be  described.  In  the  minds  of  many,  his  character, 
and  the  religion  he  professes  to  teach,  "will  be  identified.  In 
proportion  as  he  falls  below  the  proper  standard  of  ministerial 
sanctity,  their  views  of  Christianity  will  be  erroneous.     He  is  set 


PERSONAL    RELIGION.  593. 

up  to  give  light.  But  if  the  light  which  he  gives  is  darkness,  how 
great  is  that  darkness.  Hence  the  unthinking  multitude  will  lose 
sight  of  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong.  For  what 
regard  will  they  feel  for  a  distinction  which  is  disregarded  by 
him  who  is  placed  before  them  as  a  spiritual  guide !  Whence 
is  it  that  so  many  persons  in  a  Christian  land  form  low  and  in- 
correct opinions  of  the  nature  of  religion  ?  It  is  because  they 
turn  away  from  the  word  of  God,  which  holds  up  a  standard  of 
true  but  unseen  excellence,  and  fix  their  eyes  upon  the  character 
of  a  minister  who  is  near  them,  and  with  whoin  they  have  a 
familiar  acquaintance.  It  is  gratifying  to  their  depraved  hearts 
to  look  at  such  a  character,  because  it  administers  so  little  reproof. 
They  may  occasionally  open  the  Scriptures  and  read,  that  Jesus 
was  holy,  harmless  and  undefiled,  and  that  all  men  are  required 
to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  to  be  holy  as  he  is  holy.  But 
they  pass  by  these  teachings  of  Scripture  and  banish  any  con- 
victions of  sin  or  fears  of  divine  wrath  which  may  disturb  their 
peace,  by  referring  to  one  who  is  consecrated  to  the  service  of 
God,  and  is  employed  in  teaching  the  doctrines  and  duties  of 
religion,  in  whom  they  can  discover  nothing  of  the  excellence  of 
Christ,  and  nothing  of  the  benevolence  and  sanctity  inculcated 
by  his  gospel ;  and  in  despite  of  the  authority  of  revelation,  they 
will  judge  of  truth  and  duty  from  what  they  see  in  such  a  minis- 
ter ;  and  this  way  of  judging  confirms  them  in  error,  and  gives 
countenance  to  the  indulgence  of  their  passions. 

But  you  may  say,  an  ungodly  minister  sometimes  preaches  the 
truth.  Undoubtedly  he  does  so.  And  the  consequence  is,  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  well  as  the  sacredness  of  his  office, 
are  associated  with  the  unrighteousness  of  his  character.  In  this 
view,  how  great  a  pestilence  is  a  minister  whose  character  is 
stained  with  vice.  Neither  the  sophistry  of  infidels,  nor  the 
ridicule  of  the  profane,  nor  the  persecution  of  the  powerful  has 
ever  injured  the  cause  of  Christ  so  much  as  the  impiety  and  profli- 
gacy of  some  of  his  professed  ministers. 

What  a  striking  contrast  to  all  this  is  found  in  the  usefulness 
of  a  minister,  whose  exemplary  piety  shows  the  excellence  of 
60* 


PERSONAL   RELIGION. 

religion,  awakens  the  consciences  of  the  wicked,  and  excites 
believers  to  press  towards  the  majk. 

Finally,  a  hfe  of  piety  is  necessary  to  a  minister's  enjoyment. 
The  enjoyment  of  a  faithful,  devoted  minister  arises  in  part  from  the 
performance  of  his  duties.  The  study  of  the  Scriptures,  preach- 
ing the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  and  being  perpetually  conver- 
sant with  spiritual  and  heavenly  objects,  yields  him  inexpressible 
delight.  Even  in  his  sufferings  he  has  such  a  supporting  sense 
of  the  divine  presence,  that  he  can  say,  "  I  am  filled  ^vith  com- 
fort ;  I  am  exceedingly  joyful  in  all  my  tribulations."  The  apos- 
tles speak  of  rejoicing  always,  —  of  triumphing  and  glorying  in 
their  afiiictions.  The  lonely  deserts  through  which  they  travelled, 
and  the  dungeons  in  which  they  were  confined,  witnessed  their  joy 
and  their  songs  of  praise. 

It  contributes  much  to  the  enjoyment  of  a  minister  who  is  sin- 
cerely pious,  to  witness  the  success  of  his  labors.  If  it  please 
the  God  of  all  grace,  to  look  upon  those  to  whom  he  ministers,  and  to 
quicken  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  what  joy  is  hke  his  ?  A  tender 
parent  feels  unutterable  joy  over  a  dear  child  raised  from  dangerous 
fdckness,  or  snatched  from  devouring  flames.  But  still  purer  is 
the  joy  of  an  affectionate  minister,  when  he  sees  his  people  washed 
from  their  sins,  and  dehvered  from  the  wrath  to  come  !  Even  if 
he  prevails  to  w^in  only  a  few  souls  to  Christ ;  with  what  holy 
delight  does  he  stand  and  gaze  upon  those  few  redeemed  souls, 
lately  enemies  to  God  by  wicked  works,  now  bearing  fruit  to  his 
praise  !  What  then  must  be  his  emotions,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
poured  out,  and  multitudes  of  converts  are  added  to  the  church  I 
He  participates  the  joy  of  the  angels  in  heaven.  Like  the 
blessed  Jesus,  he  rejoices  in  spirit,  and  thanks  the  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth  for  his  distinguishing  mercy.  He  enjoys  the  bliss  of 
every  converted  sinner ;  and  is  himself  enriched  with  the  riches 
of  divine  grace  displayed  among  his  people.  And  if  he  may  but 
see,  believers  fervent  in  spirit,  growing  in  grace,  and  shining  as 
lights  in  the  world,  —  Oh,  what  pure,  holy  delight  does  he  feel ! 

Even  if  he  should  at  present  be  without  visible  success,  he  still 
has  resources,  which  cannot  fail.     He  resolves  to  do  his  duty  in 


PERSONAL  RELIGION.  ^M> 

obedience  to  the  divine  commands,  quietly  leaving  the  result  of 
his  labors  to  the  disposal  of  infinite  wisdom,  and  resting  on  the 
truth,  that  God  will  be  glorified.  He  knows  that  if  he  is  faithful, 
he  will  "  be  unto  God  a  sweet  savor  of  Christ  in  them  that  are 
saved,  and  in  them  that  perish."  He  has  moreover  the  joy  of 
anticipating  the  glorious  triumph  of  the  cause  in  which  he  is  en- 
listed. In  the  darkest  seasons,  he  is  supported  by  Christian  hope, 
and  by  his  endeavors  to  do  good.  For  the  rest,  he  patiently 
waits,  till  the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge  shall  give  him  the 
unfading  crown. 

Besides  all  tliis,  he  enjoys  the  success  of  the  gospel  in  the  hands 
of  other  ministers,  and  the  prosperity  of  Zion  in  other  places. 
And  when  he  reads  the  book  of  prophecy,  which  reveals  the  fu- 
ture enlargement  and  glory  of  the  church,  he  is  raised  above  his 
troubles,  and  filled  with  transport. 

But  what  are  all  these  things  to  a  minister  destitute  of  religion, 
and  under  the  influence  of  an  earthly  mind  ?  Can  he  be  happy 
in  the  service  of  a  master,  whom  he  does  not  love  ?  —  happy, 
while  occupied  with  business  not  congenial  to  the  temper  of  his 
heart  ?  Can  he,  who  has  never  tasted  the  goodness  of  God  in 
his  own  salvation,  enjoy  it  in  the  salvation  of  others  ?  Assign  to 
him  the  most  sacred  labors.  Let  him  be  daily  conversant  with 
holy,  heavenly  objects.  These  are  all  adverse  to  his  feelings. 
Present  to  him  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  and 
the  beauty  of  grace  in  the  redeemed ;  but  this  is  a  beauty  and 
glory  which  he  has  no  eyes  to  see,  and  no  heart  to  love.  Assure 
him  that  the  set  time  to  favor  Zion  will  come  ;  that  she  will  be  for 
a  name  and  a  praise  in  all  the  earth.  His  heart  is  unmoved. 
He  sees  only  barren,  cheerless  deserts,  in  those  fields  and  gar- 
dens "  which  the  Lord  hath  blessed." 

And  if  religion  is  so  indispensable  to  the  proper  enjoyments  of 
a  minister  in  this  world  ;  how  much  more  to  prepare  him  for  its 
rewards  in  the  world  to  come.  No  one  who  has  not  been  renewed 
by  the  Spirit,  and  labored  faithfully  to  bring  sinners  to  repentance, 
can  meet  the  approbation  of  the  final  Judge.  Even  if  an  un- 
godly minister  should  be  admitted  into  the  celestial  paradise,  he 


604  PERSONAL  RELIGION. 

would  have  no  relish  for  its  pleasures.  •  The  same  impiety, 
which  disqualifies  him  for  the  enjoyments  of  the  ministry  here, 
would  disqualify  him  for  its  holy  rewards  hereafter.  As  he  has 
in  the  present  life  no  heart  to  rejoice  in  the  good  of  Zion,  so, 
at  the  last  day,  when  he  looks  upon  the  innumerable  multitude 
who  have  been  ransomed  from  sin  and  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
and  beholds  the  exalted  majesty  and  glory  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ ;  it  will  be  no  joy  to  him.  He  will  turn  away  from 
the  sight,  envying  the  happiness  wliich  he  cannot  taste. 

The  truth  which  I  have  thus  aimed  to  establish  is  a  truth  of 
the  highest  moment  to  all  who  expect  to  be  invested  with  the 
sacred  office.  If  destitute  of  holiness,  whatever  may  be  their 
attainmenjis  and  qualifications  in  other  respects,  they  are  unfit  for 
the  ministry,  and  with  all  their  gifts,  are  really  as  sounding  brass 
or  a  tinkling  cymbal.  They  do  not  answer  the  description,  which 
the  Spirit  of  God  has  given  of  his  ministers.  They  can  do  nothing 
to  purpose  in  advancing  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  They  cannot 
accomplish  the  great  end  of  the  Christian  ministry.  They  cannot 
rightly  perform  its  duties.  They  cannot  rightly  encounter  its 
trials  and  difficulties.  They  will  fall  short  of  the  proper  useful- 
ness of  the  sacred  office  ;  and  will  be  incapable  of  enjoymg  its 
appropriate  pleasures. 

Out  of  regard  then  to  their  own  interest,  as  well  as  to  the 
interest  of  the  church,  it  becomes  candidates  for  the  ministry  to 
pause  on  the  threshold  of  the  sacred  office,  and  examine  them- 
selves as  to  their  fitness  for  its  duties,  lest  they  should  incur  the 
guilt  of  touching  the  ark  of  God  with  unhallowed  hands. 


Princeton  Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01196  6621 


DATE  DUE 

Atf»  •!  "W 

CAVLORD 

PRINTEOINU.S.A. 

